/lit/ - Literature

have conversations with your wall so you get the feel of how humans actually speak.
write it down

Dive in the deep end: write a play.

Ok OP, I pretty much made a vow not to post on writing threads but this problem is one I've thought about for a long time. I have two thoughts on the matter (yup, just two): 1) Most dialogue in novels, short stories etc do NOT read like we speak, there has been a strange alternate 'literary' style of dialogue which has developed that we are all familiar with, but doesn't even come close to the rhythm of spoken language. If you want a good example, find an anthropology text and look at the interviews (which are always recorded verbatim) and then compare it to your favorite writer. There will be huge differences. 2) There are two ways you can get around this, record your conversations and try to learn from them, this can actually be a lot of fun, you won't be learning literary dialogue, but you will understand reactions, punctuation and a few other tricks through the process. Two, simply don't use dialogue. This has been my solution, it means your stories will all come off seeming like parables or fables or whatever but allows you to write what you want without have to deal with dialogue, which does require quite the knack admittedly. Hope this helps!

Think as much about what people do as you do about what they say.

Example time*:
<Aspel> "Let me help you," I ask her, giving her hand a squeeze. "Let me do whatever I can."
<@XXX> "You can't. The bond between Vassal and Liege is unbreakable."
<Aspel> I don't believe in unbreakable. "There has to be some way to get him to let go of you. Some favour that can be done."
<@XXX> "None. Once I die, my soul belongs to him. The only possible way to break it would be to destroy him. And I don't think you have the power to kill a god, Juste."
<Aspel> I bite my lip, but start thinking of ways to do just that. This thing can't be stronger than The Many, and Leo has to defeat it. If I'm going to help him, then killing a God should be a good start. Not that I could have any chance against Legion. Or anything stronger than a Spirit Count. "I can at least try to lessen his control." Spirits have bans. The bigger the spirit, the bigger the ban.
<Aspel> This thing's is probably huge.
<@XXX> And is probably incredibly hard to find out.
<@XXX> She just drinks her water. "I can't tell you anything about him, you know. It would be betraying my loyalty."
<Aspel> Looks like I'm going to have to buy the grim reaper a drink, and try to turn up the charm. "Wh-what?" my train of thought is knocked off course, and I try to act like I wasn't thinking of breaking into a cemetery, and doing something reckless and stupid, "I know..." There's also Rachel. I haven't talked to her in a while. It feels strange talking to her lately.
<@XXX> "Juste, don't even think about trying to track him down. Beings this powerful... they're not that easy to get to."
<Aspel> "I know," I reply with a sigh, "I just... I just want to help you."

*Sidebar: Roleplaying helps a lot with writing dialogue and description, and making it feel less stilted. Especially online roleplaying, because then you're typing it out much like you would with actual writing.

>>1094646
Actually, I try to write very naturally. I make sure my characters say "um" and "uh," and stop and stutter when they're under stress or worried.

Though for some of my more... pathetic and wimpy characters, it comes out nearly unreadable the more emotional they get.

Which is where the description comes in. If an accent is too thick for you to write comfortably, write it thickly, then describe how thick it is, and from there on tone it down and mention how it took the character longer than it should have to piece through the dialogue.

Don't make it too realistic. What comes across as good, natural dialogue on paper does not bear that much resemblance to actual transcribed dialogue. A slight nod to realism (an occasional "er", for example) is more than enough. If you throw in every "er" that actually occurs in conversation, it's annoying as shit to read.

some famous author whose name I forget said that lots of beginning authors always try to describe the dialogue too much.

"Don't describe your dialogue too much, it should be obvious on its own merits." said Sad Doctor helpfully.

or combining dialogue with then more and more action - "blahblahblah", said sad doctor as he climbed the tower as the evil giant threw rocks down at him.

Most of the time, just say the dialogue out loud to yourself, and be minimalist with any other words outside the quotes during the dialogue.

Just open up a well-written book and look at how they arrange the dialogue

>>1094888
Would you say that I had too much description, or did I do it right?

I try to make dialogue a function of the narrative, instead of something standing outside of it.
Though it works a heck of a lot better in first person than it does in third.

old cheesy dialogue is best dialogue

american literature dialogue is best dialogue

see: the great gatsby, an american tragedy

Three rules I follow

1. Make it as a short as possible. People speak quickly, in fragments and short sentences.

People are more likely to say: 'you shouldn't have done that' than 'mary, you should not have committed that act' (I know it's an exaggerated example but people speak quickly and to the point)

2. Only use 'said' and use it sparingly. Most good dialogue is simply

'hey, how are you?'
'I'm good thanks' said tom
'that's good to know'
'yes it sure is'
'wow this conversation is dull'

adding 'he asked' 'tom said with astonishment' usually interrupts the flow of the dialogue and the reader can usually grasp the emotion put across. Said should be used sparingly to help clarify who is speaking.

3. Read aloud whatever dialogue you have written. Once you are done then read it aloud, if you hesitate over something or find it awkward to say then it's unlikely to be what someone would actually say aloud.

Hope that helps

>>1094919
>adding 'he asked' 'tom said with astonishment' usually interrupts the flow of the dialogue and the reader can usually grasp the emotion put across. Said should be used sparingly to help clarify who is speaking.
This. Regardless of what you think of stephen king, he does know about simplified, effective, efficient dialogue (during one of these advices about writing, I think he said that no adverbs are necessary at all)

>>1094919
>>1094946
Surely one can replace said with other fairly innocuous phrases which don't modulate the tone. I'm thinking of "asked", "replied", "put in" and so on.

Also, I understand adverbs generally detract and distract from satisfying dialogue, but some things simply can't be conveyed with text: the pace at which the character speaks, for one, and sarcasm for another. Are adverbs allowable in such circumstances?