[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 543 KB, 3027x2010, Top_of_Atmosphere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4167980 No.4167980[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How does one effectively depict the sounds of dialogue in literature?

How do you get across the little tilts of the voice when asking a question, the longer pauses between words when one is worried, the soft, hush pronunciation when one is trying to tell a secret.

In plays, television, and film it's easy, the audience just HEARS that, but how does one correctly describe that without filling up the pages with nothing but descriptor phrases after the dialogue?

>> No.4168001

>>4167980
You describe someone doing something so the dialogue isn't a big chunk in the reader's mind. It's not that hard, especially for the pauses between words.

>> No.4168034

>>4167980

Going by the examples you set out in your second sentence:

>"But if that's true why wouldn't Robert tell me what was happening?" she asked, her voice tilting as she spoke, begging Anon to calm her fears

>"You... You can't really expect me to do that.." He said, the pauses between his words filled with a dread so strong he could taste it

>She smiled at him and said, "I just wanted you to know that I'll always be here for you." Her voice was soft, hushed like a small child who was telling a secret to their best friend.

There you go.

>> No.4168044

>>4168034
That's erring more on the tell side of show, don't tell. Proper writing shouldn't be so direct and forceful, the reader should get the idea but not be told what to connect it to.

>> No.4168048

>>4168044

If dialogue is a big part of your writing, you've already jumped the line onto the "Tell" side of the spectrum.

Might as well go all out.

>> No.4168053

>>4168048
>I've already shot the suspect, I may as well kill him
Not really, it's usually best to reign things in as much as you can.

>> No.4168056

by the description of the character that was given by the writer, and by your life experience you should be able of imagining those kinds of things easily

>> No.4168065

>>4168053
Reigning things in leads to mediocrity

If you've already killed Alyona, you might as well kill Lizaveta as well.

>> No.4168117

ideally the words themselves show how they may be pronounced

>> No.4168134

>>4168117

>Oh no, how terrible

These words can easily be said in many different ways and REQUIRE additional add-on's to make it clear how they SOUND to the ear

"Oh no, how terrible!" she exclaimed.

"Oh no, how terrible..." he said sarcastically.

>> No.4168187

>>4168134
>"Oh no, how terrible..." he said sarcastically.

This. But, ideally, you want to try to avoid adverbs after "said." It's not a strict rule, but it just gets annoying after a while.

"Oh, no. How terrible," he said, fiddling with a button in his waste coat.

>> No.4168406

Write well, and the reader can interpret the tone of voice quite easily. For example, even decently written stream of consciousness can read quite well without any guiding descriptions or narrative cues.

If this is too hard for your intended audience or you can't figure out how to give proper contextual cues to the reader with words alone, go make a Visual Novel.

>> No.4168419

>>4168044
>Show, don't tell
Plenty of great writers would've scoffed at you if you ever gave them this advice. It's good advice for beginner writers, but not some universal law.

>> No.4168423

>>4168419
I don't seem to belong to that great category, however, as the tone of the post is not at all what I intended. What I mean is just not to take the rule too seriously.

>> No.4168444

Read a book on linguistics.

>> No.4168479

>>4168444
Could you be more specific? Or do you want me to type "linguistics book" into google and feel lucky?

>> No.4168489

>>4168479

Look up the textbook for an "Intro to Linguistics" course. A bunch of colleges have it as a major, and an academic book would be best for what you want to describe accurately.

>> No.4168505

>>4168489
Thanks

>> No.4168690

>>4168187
doinitrite

>> No.4168799
File: 31 KB, 300x387, Despair300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168799

>tfw saying a line of dialogue over and over again aloud, trying to figure out the right way to describe it on paper
>Look like a schizophrenic to people passing by you

>> No.4169072

>>4167980

Just be glad you don't write scripts for theater, anon.

>Have the perfect line-read in your head
>Try and convey that to the actor/actress during the first few days of rehearsal
>They care fuck all about "authorial intent" and just go whatever makes their willy's tingle

I fucking hate actors

And yet I love writing "for" them.

>> No.4169124

>>4168034
Ergh. The first just gives too much detail, and feels unnatural. The second is awkward -- pauses between words is a nice detail, but that dread shit makes it too heavy, and the addition of taste creates a dissonance of sensory detail that doesn't work at all.

The third is good, as it is something familiar to the reader. And that, I think, is the key: "natural" sounding dialogue is familiar to the reader. When writing dialogue, I tend to put the majority of responsibility in the reader's hands -- as in, I let them interpret the voice and tone what what's said on their own, with some occasional adjectives or details thrown in.

But is it good to have natural-sounding dialogue throughout the entire work? I find unfamiliar, unnatural, or otherwise uncanny dialogue demands the most attention, and really gives weight to whatever's being said.

>>4169072
Wow -- formalist actors? They're, like, allowed to exist? Sounds awful.

>> No.4169129

>>4168799
>tfw your expression matches the face of the character you're trying to write

>> No.4169132

>>4169124

>formalist actors

The price for my degree, but since I'm on scholarship, a price I willingly bare.

>> No.4169135

>>4169124

>I tend to put the majority of responsibility in the reader's hands -- as in, I let them interpret the voice and tone what what's said on their own

I'm far too much of a fascist-writer to do that, though I really wish I could.

>> No.4169142

>>4169129
Happens when I draw or doodle. I feel like that guy in the /v/ comic, with the handheld, making the faces. You know the one.

>>4169135
But what I'm talking about actually IS pretty fascist. You're making the reader do most of the work for you. By giving enough detail, and thinking about the context the character is talking in, you greatly narrow the reader's interpretation of that character's dialogue. It's basically covert totalitarianism, AKA the NWO kind, AKA the best kind. Only /pol/ will read your dialogue wrong.