Looking back on my draft now, it probably could be a lot tighter...maybe...hmm... Lemme try this again. Ruth was quiet. Still. Her hands balled up in her lap as she stared at her wand on the coffee table. John could sense the anxiety bubbling within her and wondered if he were causing it. "Ruth, what's wrong?" John asked in a gentle tone. Her eyes snapped onto him for a brief moment, then back to the wand. He sighed. "I can't help you if you don't talk." "What is there to talk about, John?" Ruth's voice was hoarse. "My visions proved me correct. You've killed him. With my wand. Why?" So he was causing it. John took a deep breath and spoke with careful restraint, "It was an act of self-defense-" Ruth shot up to her feet. "Why did you do it?" She shouted. "We had a deal. Did you think yourself superior to the Higher Magi? You've ruined us! Ruined our clan! That man did not need to die." How's that? Oh, and sorry Mr. Pruitt for running wild with the original Ruth/John argument.
Ruth and John never had so much fun! Let them enjoy themselves! I like this. Tiny quibble would be that I'm not sure the "it" in "so he was causing it" is anywhere near close enough to its antecedent, at least for a reader who hasn't already read several versions of this conversation. And I think you're over-using their names in dialogue. Writers do it a lot, but if you listen to actual conversations, it's pretty rare for someone to use the name of the person they 're speaking to, especially when there are only two people in the conversation. I had a woman use my name probably five times in a conversation the other day and by the end of it I wanted to clock her. All that magical mumbo-jumbo about the power of knowing someone's true name? I think it has its roots in reality, because there are definite power issues with using someone's name in conversation. (Damn, this is almost worth its own thread). Anyway, I don't think they'd have used each other's names in this context, not unless they were trying to send a message that I'm not picking up on.
Good points, Bayview. They wouldn't need to address each other by their names even if they were angry, should've thought of that. And I could've rewritten the 'so he was causing it' to something like 'Ah, so I'm the problem'.
It looks good! It's not always about cutting stuff away, though. Sometimes it's just about changing the words. You could change John asked in a gentle tone to John gently asked. You might also be able to find a better word to describe careful restraint, but I'm not really sure what. Prudence springs to mind, but I don't think that quite works. Also, if you're not already doing so -- I can't tell since the example is in italics -- you should use italics on was in the sentence so he was causing it. So he was causing it. And try not to use sighs and deep breaths a lot: they are clique and usually reflect a writers inability to be more creative. In this case it works well, but it's always something to be mindful of.
Are you putting this 'spoiler' in the review room? I think you should. My very first problem, and it's a big one—I can't figure out who is saying the lines. Even in that first paragraph. I have no idea who is speaking. You need to make sure that in nearly all cases the speaker's action and speech are not connected in the same paragraph to another person's actions or speech. Don't worry, that's very easy to learn, and once you learn it, it becomes second-nature to do it that way. I'll give more detailed feedback if you put this in the Workshop.
OK, let me add some of your edits to see how it looks: Ruth was quiet. Still. Her hands balled up in her lap as she stared at her wand on the coffee table. John could sense the anxiety bubbling within her and wondered if he were causing it. "What's wrong?" John gently asked. Her eyes snapped onto him for a brief moment, then back to the wand. He pressed further. "I can't help you if you don't talk." "What is there to talk about?" Ruth's voice was hoarse. "My visions proved me correct. You've killed him. With my wand. Why?" So I'm causing it. John took a deep breath, spoke with calculated restraint, "It was an act of self-defense-" Ruth shot up to her feet. "Why did you do it?" She shouted. "We had a deal. Did you think yourself superior to the Higher Magi? You've ruined us! Ruined our clan! That man did not need to die." Wow, it looks tighter. Better too. @jannert - I put the spoiler'd in the General Fiction section for review if you want to check it out. I think I titled it, 'Help with dialogue structure- excerpt included'.
So I'm causing it just doesn't seem right. So I am causing it would be better. Have you also tried changing Ruth was quiet. Still. To Ruth was quiet and still.
Ruth was quiet and still. Her hands balled up in her lap as she stared at her wand on the coffee table. John could sense the anxiety bubbling within her and wondered if he were causing it. "What's wrong?" John gently asked. Her eyes snapped onto him for a brief moment, then back to the wand. He pressed further. "I can't help you if you don't talk." "What is there to talk about?" Ruth's voice was hoarse. "My visions proved me correct. You've killed him. With my wand. Why?" So I am causing it. John took a deep breath, spoke with calculated restraint, "It was an act of self-defense-" Ruth shot up to her feet. "Why did you do it?" She shouted. "We had a deal. Did you think yourself superior to the Higher Magi? You've ruined us! Ruined our clan! That man did not need to die." OK, it looks a bit better. Another question is, should 'she' in 'she shouted' be lowercase or is it OK the way it is? It seems...off. Looking at 'visions proved me correct', should it instead be 'my visions have proven me correct'? I'm not that familiar with the grammar in this instance. Also, and this is more in terms of character, does Ruth seem to sway through the emotions a bit too quickly? First she's anxious and now she's enraged. Maybe I ought to re-write the anxiety to something else. Maybe something like "John could sense simmering anger within her..."?
It seemed a bit odd and confusing to me. It's actually perfectly acceptable, but it wasn't smooth. Also, using one word mechanics usually provokes a sense of action and excitement within the reader, and since she's quiet and still, you don't want to be hyping up your audience. Here is an example of using a single word in the sense you did. The way I use motionless in this sentence from my current story. Though, I use it with commas rather than a period. That evening, long after Caroline had left, Brooks found himself standing in the same place, motionless, like a mechanical toy that had ran out of juice, still starring at his own dim reflection in the mirror. Who am I? As for the she shouted, I believe it's supposed to be in lowercase.
Ah, makes sense. The halting narrative is better suited for action, not in a setting where the character is supposed to be still and silently horrified. I thought that's what it should've been. I get confused because 'She' in this context is the pronoun for Ruth and it was at the end of a sentence 'Why did you do it?'
You're getting into stylistic issues, and at some point you're going to have to tell us all to shut up. I would have left "quiet. Still." alone, because to me "quiet and still" just seems kind of redundant. It's style - you need to ignore the rest of us and get comfortable with what you're comfortable with! But, yes, "She shouted" should be lower case. Same sentence, so no need for a capital. I wouldn't worry about getting the grammar right within dialogue, unless you're thinking Ruth is deeply into proper grammar even when upset. If so... well, even if so, I don't think one's right and the other's wrong. One's past perfect, I guess, but I don't think there's an important distinction to make, here. In terms of characterization - I think there's a fine line between anxious and angry, so I don't think the cycling happens too quickly. We're in John's POV so you can't trace the transition too closely, but it didn't feel jarring to me as is.
Now I have to do my own: "What?" Ruth stared at him while her hands folded the pizza menu, then folded it again, and again, and again. When it was too thick to fold any more, she looked down in faint confusion at the wad of paper in her hands. John took a breath. Oh, dear. "Ruth. Ruth. Look at me. I understand this is making you crazy, but I'm not sure sure that the problem is, well, real."
This is very true. At the end of the day, writing is like music production: there aren't really any rules. What sounds good is good; same goes with writing. To be honest, I just realised that something like this could actually dilute your own voice as a writer. You should consider what people are saying, but don't always take advice for the hell of it. At the end of the day, I'm unpublished and not all that good a writer, either.
Well, it's 24 minutes past midnight here, and I'm off to bed. But I'll take a look in the morning...cheers for now.
You should just write it the way you like best, Link. People will always be debating on what works best; me and Bayview are a prime example. But at the end of the day, if you send it to a publisher, they aren't going to point stuff like that out and say it's wrong, then call you a retard. Some people will like it, others won't. That's something you have to be prepared for.
Ironically, your version is better than the two before them. Know why? Because you got rid of all the generic stage setting, like "squeezing her hands tightly together" and some of the ridiculous adverbs. Your version is considerably more action packed. What that means is that your descriptions hold potential beyond just describing what is happening at that exact moment. "The silence was soothing, but temporary". Gotchya, something's about to go down. "Every second bought him a little more time." GREAT. Note, I think these two sentences could be made to work better together, but individually they're good. It's not master class prose, yet. You'd still need to get rid of the exclamation points and the adverbs and the italics for thoughts and you could probably combine some actions to make them more potent. Like, "Ruth shooting up to her feet and then pulling her wand from her coat" could be made more potent, in my opinion. Finally, you can cut out/delete the cliches like "How dare you!" and keep your gems, like "but treating-me-like-the-bad-guy-before-I-even-know-shit is not gonna help you any time soon." Cliches aren't just bad because they're cliches. They're bad because they've lost their meaning (usually). I prefer dialogue that is personal and heavily in context, like an inside joke. For instance. Let's say I wanted to praise you. I could say, "Link, you're so smart!" Zzzzzz. Or I could say, "That's the last time I try to debate history with you." Specific vs generic. Oh, just saw your latest revisions. Looks like you're getting more specific. Terrific.
^^ That teaches me for not fully reading a thread. Mr. Number is absolutely right. That version is a lot better, overall. ---> In my opinion <---
I wasn’t going to delve into this topic again because it has turned into a personal opinion thread; however, one area of advice seems to have been missed throughout this discussion. Dialogue is a very powerful in developing an author’s characters. With that being said, dialogue must be consistent throughout the length of the story. An expanded dialogue and descriptive narrative that merely lengthens a scene will be no good in a short story. The dialogue and connective narration must be as strong, concise and consistent as all possible throughout the length of the piece. As discussed at a writers club meeting I attended a few months ago, our guest speaker noted that he would have a dozen sticky notes pasted on a wall beside him testing out various dialogues and narratives for the same scene. He would then pick out the strongest and most powerful sentence and insert into his story. A person who writes short stories must learn to use the power of words to build that power into his or her work. A person who is writing a 200 thousand word novel has the luxury of being colourful with both the dialogue and descriptive narrative. An author of a short story does not have that luxury. This is why I preferred Mr. Pruitt’s and BayView’s versions over some of the other versions in this thread. They both said a lot within a very short use of words.
^ Well, remember I've just learned how to do it so it'll take me time until I can say a lot with a short use of words. I'll get there eventually. Thanks for all the help everyone. It's been a tremendous learning experience.
I don't think density is ever a bad thing. You want to say as much as you can, always. That often means multidimensional sentences. So I don't think the examples you mentioned were as good as they could be. They had too much stage setting that didn't convey anything beyond the obvious. A thirteen year old girl sticking her tongue out at her mom is not very interesting. If she sticks it out at a strange old man who won't take his eyes off her, the sentence suddenly gains weight (if in a very disturbing way). Generic sentences is what KILLS writing, especially in dialogue areas. If you do it in a section of heavy narrative, you might not notice it. But put it in dialogue, and your work turns into a screenplay.
Getting back to the OP, just some mechanics, not a full critique: “Arthéa,” Ikaya collapsed in a chair, her paws trembling in her lap. Gregreo was in her office, standing near the doorway with his hands clasped behind his back. Ikaya behind her desk of books, a candle, and a quill inside its inkstand. The Aquani's eyes were filled with unmistakeable fear at the news. “My child? Possessed?” It's not clear who is speaking there. If it is Ikaya, you need a new paragraph to describe Gregreo and it works best to continue with the scene description then a new dialogue paragraph. And you need a period after “Arthéa” because the next sentence is not a tag. “Arthéa.” Ikaya collapsed in a chair, her paws trembling in her lap. Gregreo was in her office, standing near the doorway with his hands clasped behind his back. Ikaya behind her desk of books, a candle, and a quill inside its inkstand. The Aquani's eyes were filled with unmistakeable fear at the news. “My child? Possessed?” Ikaya said. And here: “This demon doesn't serve anyone.” Ikaya shook her head. “It's chaotic, it—" Ikaya shot up from her seat and hurried out. Gregreo balked at this sudden interruption as he watched her hurry towards a side chamber. She stopped, turned to him and beckoned with a paw. “Come on, I need you to see something.” And so on. Also, with this, "Gregreo was in her office", 'her' refers back to the last relevant noun. If you meant Ikaya's office the reader might know that if they were familiar with the genders of the characters but for me coming in cold, it looks like they were in Gregreo's office.
This might be easier to address if we had a sample. I mean, "you have to learn dialogue" is like saying "You need to learn to write better," just from a standpoint of I'm not going to need more in order to address the question.
Heh, I asked for a sample and, had I read a bit further down the list of posts, I would have found it. As far as readability goes, I think your dialogue works well, is believable and interlaced nicely with the transitioning prose to make for good fluidity. The thing that's most often forgotten about dialogue is that it's in more than just the words said (which are certainly important). The action of the characters speaks volumes--reactions, gestures, etc. And here you do a fine job remembering that.
