This is part 2 of my earlier post around character dialogue (part 1).
Character dialogue should be true to the character. The way in which our characters communicate should be a reflection of their world view, position in life and their unique personality (see post about having distinct character voices). How they talk, how much, and what they say will all be effected.
To demonstrate this, I’ll briefly give you Ben’s definition of the four personality types according to the four temperaments, and look at how a character might speak if they were part of the Fellowship of the Ring in Lord of the Rings.
- A phlegmatic character might be happy with “whatever”. They are either easy-going or too lazy to challenge the status quo. They’ll be unflappable as steel, but could be too casual and unlikely to lead.
“I’m happy to come too, but do we have to leave immediately? Can’t we wait until after the weekend when we are well-rested?”
- A choleric will be all about achievement. They’ll be thinking and talking about how the goals can be accomplished. They’ll want to be organized in advance, but their driven nature might rub others the wrong way. They can make great leaders or administrators but lack “soft skills”.
“OK before we leave we should work out how long the trip will take, where we can stop and resupply and what items we need to carry. We should make a list of responsibilities and delegate them out.”
- A sanguine loves to be the centre of attention and the life of the party. They will nearly always have something to say. They are upbeat and happy.
“Shouldn’t we have a party before we leave?”
- A melancholic will be worried about the task, their place in it and how things could go wrong. They are often emotionally intelligent, but can get lost in the vortex of their own introspection.
“Don’t you realise they call it Mount Doom for a reason? It’s not going to be butterflies and rainbows. People I love are going to die, possibly me too.”
My worldview bleeds through – so here is a better diagram showing both the strengths and the weaknesses of the personality types. Normally a person has strong traits of two of the types (diagonally opposite don’t normally go together. As the saying goes though, “opposites often attract”).
A character with low self-esteem will not often challenge a dominant character’s comments. A proud character may speak a lot, because doesn’t everyone want to hear what they are thinking? An introvert is less likely to speak in a group setting.
Dialogue tags should be used sparingly; wherever possible what a character says and the layout of the text should be enough to show who is speaking. Where dialogue tags are used, find different ways instead of using the common tags (said, replied etc.) Use motion or sound. (I’m still learning how to do this well).
One ‘industry person’ on the net unloaded both barrels on writers’ for using dialogue tags like:
“No!” he hissed.
“Yes,” he exploded.
The commentator sarcastically wondered if the character had become a snake… or assumed that it was the end of the story, given the protagonist was now splattered around the room.
Certainly you wouldn’t want to overuse such terms, but I personally don’t feel the objection was entirely justified. The reason why such descriptive terms are good is because the reader understands them. In one common word we can portray much. (Perhaps my viewpoint shows inexperience, or the ability to pluck low-hanging fruit…)
Character dialogue should not happen in a vacuum (aka “white room syndrome”). This is one issue that I need to improve in. I’ve been trying to unobtrusively watch people (without being creepy). Most often when we are talking to others we are also doing things. It is very rare to have someone’s full attention: we seldom stand looking at one another talking. Our characters should be doing things, reacting to what is being said. Other things should be happening around them. Life (and the rest of the world) doesn’t pause entirely for dialogue.
How characters speak to one another should be portray their emotions toward one another. Someone in love speaks very differently to the short sharp remarks of an adversary. Constantly adding a salutation to someone’s name shows respect or subservience (“Mr Frodo”) , whereas its noticeable absence reflects hostility. (“I refuse to call him Dr… it’s only an honorary title anyway”)
Dialogue should also be situational appropriate. If the tension is at a climax a “You shall not pass!” is more appropriate than “This is as far as you go. I will not allow you to hurt my friends.”
What other factors or concepts have I missed? Don’t all speak up at once, it would be out of character. (Wince)