OK, youse.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s Dialogue Day \u2013 based on your submissions to Townhouse. I realise, already, that I\u2019m going to have to write a little dialogue mini-series based on the submissions I\u2019ve received, so we\u2019ll be on dialogue next week for sure, and quite likely the week after too. So if your submission isn\u2019t picked this week, I may be able to pick it up later.<\/p>\n
Oh yes, and no housekeeping to announce this week except that some of you will get next week\u2019s Friday email on a Thursday. Which will be like opening your Christmas presents in November, but there it is. It\u2019s a strange world.<\/p>\n
Right. Dialogue. Here goes \u2026<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
JJ Barrett \/ Triangle of Time<\/strong> A quizzical expression appeared on his face as he refolded the letter and placed it back in the envelope. \u2018That was quite accurate, up to half-way.\u2019<\/p>\n \u2018We\u2019ll discuss that shortly. You know the game Paper, Scissors, Rock?\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n PJ nodded. \u2018An open hand is paper, two extended fingers are scissors, a fist is a rock. Scissors cuts paper and wins, paper wraps rock and wins, rock smashes scissors and wins. Why?\u2019<\/p>\n Stefan held out his right hand. PJ mirrored his action.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2018On the count of three,\u2019 Stefan said.<\/p>\n Their eyes were locked together. From afar it would have appeared as if the pair were about to fight, such was the intensity in their faces.<\/p>\n Stefan counted slowly, his half open hand rising and falling in time with the count. PJ followed like a shadow. \u2018One\u2026 Two\u2026 Three.\u2019<\/p>\n Stefan didn\u2019t need to look. He knew they both selected scissors.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2018Again,\u2019 he said. \u2018One\u2026 Two\u2026 Three.\u2019 This time both Rock.<\/p>\n \u2018One\u2026 Two\u2026 Three.\u2019 Scissors again.<\/p>\n \u2018One\u2026 Two\u2026 Three.\u2019 Scissors for a third time.<\/p>\n Two more attempts and both times PJ and Stefan selected Scissors.<\/p>\n PJ was looking extremely uncomfortable by now.<\/p>\n \u2018Last one PJ. One\u2026 Two\u2026 Three.\u2019 This time they both chose paper.<\/p>\n My comments<\/u>:<\/p>\n This is slicker than it might first appear. The dialogue itself looks fairly ordinary \u2013 there are quite a lot of \u2018one, two, three\u2019s, for example \u2013 but dialogue is actually made up of multiple elements, not just the actual speech. That medley of ingredients includes:<\/p>\n Here, the writer \u2013 JJB, I\u2019ll call him or her \u2013 has thrown these things together with great deftness and terrific economy. Here\u2019s the passage again, with my comments.<\/p>\n A quizzical expression appeared on his face [very succinct way to note a feeling. I don\u2019t like \u201cexpression appeared on his face\u201d, mind you, because I don\u2019t know where else an expression could appear] as he refolded the letter and placed it back in the envelope. \u2018That was quite accurate, up to half-way.\u2019<\/p>\n [Little dab of intrigue. Why quite accurate? Why half-way? The reader\u2019s interested.<\/em>]<\/p>\n \u2018We\u2019ll discuss that shortly. You know the game Paper, Scissors, Rock?\u2019<\/p>\n [Brilliant refusal to engage. There\u2019s an interesting question hanging \u2013 and the speaker immediately moves away from it. That hanging question therefore gives us a reason to read on. It also feels like a very peculiar subject to move on to \u2013 which is also intriguing.<\/em>]<\/p>\n PJ nodded. \u2018An open hand is paper, two extended fingers are scissors, a fist is a rock. Scissors cuts paper and wins, paper wraps rock and wins, rock smashes scissors and wins. Why?\u2019<\/p>\n [Here, I think the writer is concerned that the reader doesn\u2019t know what Paper\/Scissors\/Rock is, and gives a brilliantly compact explanation \u2013 try explaining the game in fewer words than that. It\u2019s as though the reader knows the explanation is basically necessary-but-boring, so is trying to move on as quickly as possible. I\u2019d have the same worry as JJB, but I\u2019d probably reckon that enough readers knew the game that I didn\u2019t have to worry. But this feels like a way to engage with the issue, no matter what.<\/em>]<\/p>\n Stefan held out his right hand. PJ mirrored his action.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2018On the count of three,\u2019 Stefan said.<\/p>\n [Again, very compact. The author wants to move us into the action and the game as fast as possible \u2026<\/em>]<\/p>\n Their eyes were locked together. From afar it would have appeared as if the pair were about to fight, such was the intensity in their faces.<\/p>\n [And of course the emotion! I\u2019ve written elsewhere about how one of the easiest tricks in fiction is just making your characters really care about whatever it is you want the reader to care about. In my case, that means getting my detective character to really, really love murder investigations. Here, we, the reader, are really going to care about what happens in the game, because the players obviously do \u2013 they look like they\u2019re about to fight, for heaven\u2019s sake! The fact that that emotion is suppressed and silent is actually more powerful. It makes the bland \u2018one, two, three\u2019s that follow all the more powerful. And the way the author (unshowily) moves in and out of dialogue, transitioning easily between dialogue \/ emotion \/ physical action, is all very deft.<\/em>]<\/p>\n Stefan counted slowly, his half open hand rising and falling in time with the count. PJ followed like a shadow. \u2018One\u2026 Two\u2026 Three.\u2019<\/p>\n [“Followed like a shadow” is good. It echoes the \u2018eyes were locked together\u2019 in the previous para. In some metaphorical way the two young men have been joined here \u2013 and the reader is joined in with them too. We\u2019re bound in to whatever happens here<\/em>.]<\/p>\n Stefan didn\u2019t need to look. He knew they both selected scissors.\u00a0<\/p>\n [More good stuff \u2013 unshowy, but good. The obvious thing would be to have shown them both choosing scissors. But that\u2019s not the interesting thing here. The interesting thing is that Stefan knew they would choose scissors, so that\u2019s where the author focuses our attention.<\/em>]<\/p>\n \u2018Again,\u2019 he said. \u2018One\u2026 Two\u2026 Three.\u2019 This time both Rock.<\/p>\n [So simple. But so compact. The utter economy of description is impressive. I\u2019m an economical author too, and I love this!<\/em>]<\/p>\n \u2018One\u2026 Two\u2026 Three.\u2019 Scissors again.<\/p>\n \u2018One\u2026 Two\u2026 Three.\u2019 Scissors for a third time.<\/p>\n [Double ditto<\/em>.]<\/p>\n Two more attempts and both times PJ and Stefan selected Scissors.<\/p>\n PJ was looking extremely uncomfortable by now.<\/p>\n [Marker of an emotional change that has happened through the course of this oddly static action. Nice<\/em>.]<\/p>\n \u2018Last one PJ. One\u2026 Two\u2026 Three.\u2019 This time they both chose paper.<\/p>\n Verdict<\/u>:<\/p>\n The dialogue itself is almost painfully simple but the movement between the different elements of the scene gives that dialogue real weight and hypnotic force. That force is made greater by all those little touches \u2013 the two men as mirrors of each other, their intensity, the little dab of intrigue at the start, the way that intrigue is swiftly discarded. None of those things amounts to much on its own but, cumulatively, this reads to me like proper professional text. There are plenty of published novels that aren\u2019t as well-handled as this.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Karen Hough \/ no title<\/strong> He pulled up the Canadian Tire<\/em> website and pointed out two coffee makers. One brewed coffee, one had all the bells and whistles and ground the beans, made cappuccinos and americanos and other frothy things. It was $800.<\/p>\n [Minor points, but you\u2019re contrasting two machines there and only giving the price for one. I think we need both. And an americano isn\u2019t frothy. You need to use a different coffee-type there, or change \u2018frothy\u2019. But it\u2019s basically a nice clean opening to the scene.]<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s crazy. I can\u2019t afford that,\u201d I said.\u00a0<\/p>\n He pulled up a calculator. \u201cYour $3 latte\u2014\u201d his eyes flicked to mine. I made a \u201chigher\u201d motion with my thumb. I tend to get a large. \u201cWe\u2019ll stick with a small for our purposes,\u201d he continued. \u201cAdd in two new travel mugs, a bag of beans every month, and some fancy syrup\u2014\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAnd whipping cream,\u201d I added helpfully. Another reason that I work out a lot.<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026and whipping cream, and a dusting of cinnamon and chocolate shavings.\u201d He was obviously the sort of man that took his coffee black and looked down on the rest of us. \u201cAnd you will still have paid the whole thing off in less than a year.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSo you\u2019re telling me to buy it?\u201d I asked.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m telling you that you are spending more than $1000 a year on coffee. If you\u2019re getting a large\u2014\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cGrande,\u201d I corrected him.<\/p>\n He looked pained. \u201cIf you\u2019re getting a large cappuccino every day, you are spending upwards of $1500.\u201d<\/p>\n My comments<\/u>:<\/p>\n Again, this is mostly neat and slick. I like the way the scene neatly avoids dialogue in places where that dialogue would just be dull. So, he \u201cpointed out two coffee makers\u201d. Presumably, he did that by saying something, but actually noting what he said would have been dull, so Karen just reports, compactly, that he pointed them out. That keeps focus on what the reader will be interested in, and avoids the dull stuff.<\/p>\n Nowhere does it say that if you write a page of dialogue, you have to report every word that\u2019s said. Really smart authors often jump from direct speech (the stuff in inverted commas) to reported speech (eg, \u201che pointed out \u2026\u201d). That way you get the live, mobile feel of dialogue with all the boring bits trimmed.<\/p>\n On the same theme, I like the way the conversation flits from oral (\u201cYour $3 latte\u201d) \u2013 to eyes flicking \u2013 to a movement of the thumb \u2013 to an observation from the first-person narrator about herself \u2013 and back to speech again. That\u2019s so swift \u2013 it\u2019s just two lines \u2013 but it accomplishes so much. The bit of self-observation, in this context, isn\u2019t quite a joke but it\u2019s a flicker of self-awareness that feels close to humour. It\u2019s definitely part of what gives this dialogue a mobile, unpredictable surface.<\/p>\n And then the conversation slides apparently sideways into a conversation about chocolate shavings and the narrator\u2019s comment about working out \u2026 before ramming back to what appears to be a purely financial conversation \u2026 except then she corrects his \u2018large\u2019 to \u2018grande\u2019 and his eyes rebuke her for the pretension.<\/p>\n Yes, all this is a conversation about finance, but it\u2019s also a conversation about personalities and values. It\u2019s a conversation about her. The iron rod of \u201cyou spend too much on coffee\u201d is just a line from which any number of other curlicues and detours can be drawn.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a very good example of the mobility of good dialogue \u2013 the way you don\u2019t quite know what\u2019s going to happen next. And also the way it forces the reader to pay close attention. This is real show-don\u2019t-tell stuff. You\u2019re forcing the reader to pay close attention to the emotional movements of the \u00a0scene, because you\u2019re not telling the reader what\u2019s happening, you\u2019re making them figure it out for themselves.<\/p>\n Another passage that feels very proficient, really confident. Again, this feels like publication standard material. Bravo.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n That\u2019s it from me. More on dialogue next week. Sorry I couldn\u2019t fit in more passages this week, but in my defence this email is 2000 words long already.<\/p>\n Go well, my friends. I\u2019m off to buy a $2,000 coffee machine. I shall pay for it with a selection of hand-curled commas and a few unneeded exclamation marks.<\/p>\n
Stefan is reliving the same life over and over again and must convince PJ of that fact\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n
Cate is 29 and deciding to be more responsible. Here she is with her financial advisor.<\/em><\/p>\n