Most of the time you don't have to mention that people laughed. If you make the reader laugh, they will assume the characters did.
"Wow, that dress makes you look hot." He said, as he admired her body. "Yeah. Right," she replied with a snort. Snorted works better for me as a reader. Replied with a snort is too long, tedious, and it hurts my eye.
This isn't necessarily true. unless the book, in some way, tells me they laughed I assume that no one found it funny. Unless of course someones proceeding dialogue recognizes the humor in a positive way. On another note. Where Bluebell would right... I would instead use a "Wow, that dress makes you look hot," he said, admiring her body. Eliminating the redundancy of he. which is something I look for in general. I can't stand writing the same descriptive word more than once, maybe twice, in a single page. With the odd exception.
Bluebell, I think what maia meant was that you should edit your original post so as not to confuse people. A lot of newbies don't know how to punctuate dialogue, and examples like that, posted as instruction, really don't help. . That's maybe a tad harsh, but I agree. . I'm not sure why it was written with so many words. Funny that even people who are very careful about this end up writing a lot of inefficient tags (myself included). Dialogue is tricky. Aside from the puctuation thing, I found the last bit altogether unneseccary, though it feels somehow natural to say something more here. Also, his wording carries the implication that she isn't normally good looking. . One of my past girlfriends would pick apart everything I said, so I learned to analyze the words before I spoke. A conversation might go like this: "Wow, that dress is hot," I said, admiring her body. (here the info fits better because it makes a minor clarification; I said the dress is hot, but I'm thinking she is. still, some would omit it for being obvious.) She snorted. "Yeah, the dress is hot." "Aww, come on." I walked over to her. "You know that's not what I meant," I sighed, setting my hands on her shoulders. "You're absolutely gorgeous, and you'll never convince me otherwise."
Yes, but if it were just put "Yeah. Right," she snorted. It sounds like she snorted the words, exactly how does one snort words out of their mouth. The problem is they don't. She said the words, then after she said them, she made a dissenting snort. You can't make that sound through writing, it's just something we do, scoffing, snorting, clearing our throat, sneering, choking, coughing, sneezing for that matter...are all sounds that have to be described in some manner, however characters, as with normal people, rarely speak while doing any of these sounds. Thus, she wouldn't snort the words "yeah. right." she was say them, then scoff (which is more the word I was looking for.) Maia and Kas, while yes, I made a mistake that I didn't catch, cause I didn't reread my post, is it really necessary to tear apart an off the hip not so good example, which I never claimed as gold? So sorry my not so thought out example sentences to the newbies wasn't up to par for you two. I'll do better next time.
Hmm... I've noticed that alot of authors repeat little phrases through their books. I think in life when you get comfortable at using certain explanations it comes out in your writing which is why some authors like (using the author of this topics example) Timothy Zahn uses derisively often.
You're thinking of it as a tag. It's not. It's what Cogito calls a beat. I wrote it as two sentences in my example. . and it doesn't matter where you put "she snorted" . . front or back, it's a standalone line. "Yeah. Right." She snorted. Nobody is trying to pick on you, Bluebell. Relax. Your made some good points, so we are expanding on them. . exploring the subject to learn and help others. . which is pretty much what this site is about, I think. No hard feelings? Peace.
Sorry Kas, I'm PMSing right now, and was in argumentative form last night after dealing with stupid landlords. Didn't mean to be so snotty. I'm not mad, no hard feelings, you guys are right, piss poor examples don't help anyone and I could have written better ones if I had taken a few extra minutes to think about it. Ha! Eyez, it's bluebell....like the flower, not like what men get after being aroused for a long time. Edit: I do know I have seen it somewhere, either in how to write fiction book, or a website, or someplace, that talks about using tag lines. To me, "she snorted." isn't so much a beat, as a tag line. To me a beat would be more like an action, but snorting could be considered both I guess. Maybe I'm just objecting to my usage of "snort." I don't like it. lol Maybe groaned, moaned, scoffed, any of those might sound better and less like a tag. She groaned, "Yeah. Right." Or maybe "Yeah. Right," she scoffed as she picked up her purse. (something actiony I think makes it less of a tag for me and makes it feel like less of a connector with what she just said.) That way the scoffing is connected to the action, rather than the verbal exchange. Tag lines are always a point of contention with me. I go between using them, or avoiding them like the plague. In school my professor was a total minimalist with tag lines. If you knew who was talking, take them out, he'd say, unless they show action that defines the character. Good writing is that thing you know when you see it, but it's hard to explain exactly what makes it good.
His gaze trailed up her long legs. "Wow, hot dress." She snorted. "Yeah, right." I prefer to do it this way because what is implied is subtext. When I edit, I spend one pass looking for nothing but ways to add subtext. Oh, and I'm disappointed that no one took a shot at describing how Daleks sound.
Bluebell: No problem! And yeah, it can be both. I only meant that it looked like a beat the way you used it (defined as an action preceding or following speech). It's definitely possible to "snort" words. . weird as it sounds. . just expel air out your nose while speaking. I do it. . . and I know I've seen it used as a tag. (as in, snorted the words) Also agree on alternative word choices. . snorting is a bit crude and conjures an unfortunate image. Me too. True, and that's why good writing is so hard to pull off. Architectus: You make a great point about subtext. I try to do the same. . but it's also easy to overdo. . too much and it can seem like a subtle kind of infodumping. Seems like nearly everything has that potential. Frustrating. As for "Dalek's sound" . . I've got about this much of a clue: -
...while you may be able to 'snort' a single word, kas, there's no way anyone can possibly 'snort' a whole sentence!... it's simply not physically possible... and wouldn't be attempted, unless one is trying to dub the dialog of a mud-wallowing hog, for an animated flick... ...we've all seen all kinds of awful stuff in others' writing, but if you want to be a good writer, you'll only emulate the best, not the worst of what you 'see'...
Lol, maia. That last bit was good advice, as always. However, the two words in the example were punctuated as two sentences. And so, as a tag, it would be: "Yeah. Right," she snorted. Isn't that okay? Technically speaking. It's kind of ugly, and doesn't make a lot of sense (usually it's the "yeah" that people huff out), so I wouldn't write it,. . . but it seems technically fine, to me. Edit: You could just stick the tag in between: "Yeah," she snorted, "right." That works. And that's enough snorting for one thread, I think.
Hi this is my first time ever on these forums so please bare with me. I have a couple of questions, but I need to explain some stuff first. I am writing a book where a character is taken out of his world and placed in another. He makes friends with one of the other characters who proceeds to be his guide. In doing so this means that basically the whole second chapter would be one of the characters trying to explain his world to the other character. This means that Characters B is doing all the talking while character A does all the listening. This is not only for Character A’s benefit but the readers as well as it exposes them to this new world of which the rest of the story takes place in. So finally my questions are: 1) How would I write such a long near continues dialogue of just one character? 2) With out cutting out content is there another/better way of writing this part?
I think we had someone ask this question before? Maybe? I remember the general consensus being that if there's something that needs explaining you're better off demonstrating it through circumstance rather than dialogue. The reasoning behind this is that not only is it made more apparent instead of just droning on and on but it's more realistic as well. Example: Someone from another dimension where public urination is allowed appears in our world. They take their right for granted and we have no idea. No-one's about to tell an interdimensional traveller "Oh, by the way please don't pee in public" until they see the guy pulling his fly open, at which point it's more like "what the funny monkey are you doing?" Actions speak much louder than words - even it they're printed =) EDIT: Actually I think I'll quote Bill Bailey here because it's perfect: He was asked what Britain was like while traveling. "We're all right... you know.. we've got err.. nectar points (they're quite handy). We've got understatement, we're tough on slogans, tough on the causes of slogans. We have strong prevailing south westerly winds. 52% of our days are overcast so as a nation we are infused with a wistful melancholy, but we remain a relentlessly chipper population prone to mild eccentricities, binge drinking and casual violence. Breakfast is served seven till nine..... NOT A MINUTE LATER! (or you will be cast out). We have no national predators, though badgers can be nasty... four hedgehogs feeding on honey might fall in your eyes. A wasp could fly in your mouth on a summer afternoon, sting your bottom lip and it swells up, you ring up the nurse and say "unnghhh unnggh unnnn". She thinks your a pervert, you get arrested and sent to a secret Mars penile colony, gain the support of the workers and throw off the shackles of oppression. And on the upside? ..... we've got Little Chefs." Think he missed anything?
Such grand exposition should really be fleshed out over the whole first act. If you can do that, it will also solve your problem of "too much dialogue." I would suggest the guide only really give the character information about that particular region of the world, rather than try to fit the sum of thousands of years of civilization into one conversation. Also keep in mind that he's going to forget to mention things. If I were explaining this world to someone who'd never been here before, I might forget to mention Christianity because it's just so ingrained in my culture.
I'm with tcol and Blaidd Drwg that you shouldn't do what you are contemplating at all. It is the very worst kind of infodump. Even if you do decide to tell a story through narration, and that should not be backstory, it should be interrupted frequently to build reader interest. If there is a segment of dialogue covering multiple paragraphs, and you cannot bring yourself to break it up, you can format it as a block quote, as described in this blog entry: He said, she said - Mechanics of Dialogue
If it becomes hard to force the MC into experiencing the things you need exposed: Have you considered adding a subplot with different characters that revolves around the topics you need to expose? Instead of having one character tell about things, cut to a couple of character who are experiencing those things. Like when Lucas put Leia on the Death Star to have her (and the audience) see its power demonstrated first hand. If someone had simply told Luke "The empire has a really nasty space station that can blow up planets" it would have seemed weak.
Why must this new world be explained? Why not simply throw the main character straight into it and let him figure things out through experience? I like the Death Star description. Being told about its power wouldn't have had nearly the impact as showing it had. Talking about it and then showing it wouldn't have been much better, as the surprise is gone.
If you had a friend come over from lets say China would you not explain things to him??? I find it hard to belive that you would just pop him down in the driver seat of your car and let him find out how we drive by letting him take your car for a spin on the freeway. Tossing a character into the deep end of a pool who can't swim and told to just figure it out isn't real, would you toss your child, for instance, into the pool and tell him/her to figure it out? You ALWAYS have to explaine things and as one of the characters sole purpose is to do just that......
That may be true, but it isn't the way to write a story. Good dialogue isn't a word-for-word depiction of what comes out of a charfacterf's mouth. Dialogue is a tool used by a writer to show aspects of the story. Very often, the content of the dialogue is not what the writer is revealing through the dialogue.
Break it up with action. Lots of action. Give the guy explaining it all a reason to stop talking - maybe something else happened in the middle of the conversation to interrupt. Leave the reader with questions though, as you do this. Have the clueless character ask some of these questions at a later point when the action quiets again. The details of a new world is a lot to take in - if you try to explain it all at once, the reader will get bored, no matter if it is done in text or dialogue. If you sat down with someone IRL and tried to explain absolutely everything to them about your world - well, 1, you would have trouble trying to think of everything immediately in a list form - you would forget some things; and 2, the person sitting there trying to listen would lose interest at some point, probably due to information overload. So both the readers and your characters would need a break, somehow. How you do that, is of course, up to you. Have fun with it. Keep it interesting, keep it moving.
No, you most definitely don't. Ever watch a tourist? We get a lot of them in Manhattan ... err I mean Paradise City. For every one that plunks down their money and lets a tour guide desrcibe everything there it to see and such (which is analogous to what you are planning, unless I am very much mistaken), there are atleast twenty just walking around, exploring, loooking, touching, and just letting the whole experience wash over them. Sure they may occasionally stop someone who is walkig by to ask a qustion, but generally they are much more interested in experiencing it first hand. If you look at those tourists on the tour buses closely, you'll usually notice they have begun to ignore their guide as they point and gape at all that is around them. More importantly, a lot of what you are proposing to write would end up being skipped by a savvy reader or cause a less savvy reader to decide the book is no longer holding their attention. Might I point out that more than some of the people who have commented on this topic already were once in your position and had to wrestle with it? Their advice isn't just a quick opinion shot from the hip, but rather the distilled wisdom of their experience coupled with the guidance of successful authors. I believe it was Cog whoonce said that a writer not only enjoys a book but analyzes why the book was enjoyable. (Cog if you didn't say this, then I want full credit. lol)
