Nathan Bransford - The Forums

"I haven't seen you around in a while. How've you been?"
"I've been fine."
"You sure? You seem kind of...I don't know. Distracted?"
"I'm not."
"Are you still mad about what I said?"
"No."

One person is clearly more invested in this conversation than the other, which is clear by the word choices but also by the visual cues. Extra explanation is unnecessary.

This is valid when two characters are present. But when you have three or more, you must use D-Tags and expressions to tell the reader who is saying the sentences, otherwise this method is going to confuse the readers.

Guardian wrote:This is valid when two characters are present. But when you have three or more, you must use D-Tags and expressions to tell the reader who is saying the sentences, otherwise this method is going to confuse the readers.

Usually, yes. However, if a writer has given the characters distinct ways of speaking, appropriate to their backgrounds and personalities and current circumstances, then it can be done without any confusion. The more characters, the less likely this can be accomplished without dialogue tags.

In the last short I wrote, I had a conversation taking place between an educated and slightly cynical woman in her 30's, a teenaged Hmong-American gang member, and an incorporeal spiritual being of (then) indeterminate nature. I could have taken out every tag without confusing the reader. Because of what was going on physically in the scene, sometimes breaking up the dialogue, I didn't attempt to go tagless.

The other thing to point out about the quick, one-liner dialogue without tags and with lots of white space is that it reads at a really fast pace. Too much of it can make a scene look like an outline instead of the final draft.

However, if a writer has given the characters distinct ways of speaking, appropriate to their backgrounds and personalities and current circumstances, then it can be done without any confusion. The more characters, the less likely this can be accomplished without dialogue tags.

True. This problem is used to appear mostly with less detailed secondary characters. Primary characters usually have different characteristics, a habit or style in their dialogues which is capable to make this difference visible, just as you said.

A method that distinguishes a naive writer from a master is to intersperse free (tagless) attribution of dialogue through reporting actions, sensations, and introspections of viewpoint characters acting upon and reacting to the aural sensation of conversation. A somewhat covert narrator expressing causal commentary about actions and sensations is in a sense also a viewpoint character, albeit from a disembodied viewpoint.

A method that distinguishes a naive writer from a master is to intersperse free (tagless) attribution of dialogue through reporting actions, sensations, and introspections of viewpoint characters acting upon and reacting to the aural sensation of conversation.

I believe this is true only in few cases as it depends from the POV. Sometimes you must use tags and expressions as it's necessary.

i.e. (It's a scene from my Nightfall where the MC is hearing this dialogue via his comm.). This is from the MCs POV.

“We've reached deck two. One more to go. Well. I must admit, their hydroponic jungle is beautiful.”
“Cut to the chase, Anderson.”
“No sign of corpses. No sign of survivors, Commander. Nothing. This barge is empty like my belly when our little Reiko is cooking her magic rice.”
“Oh, shut up, Lt.” (A d-tag is already necessary here, as this is a third character).
“I'm proceeding to the bridge with my valiant, yet so defiant escort. Anderson out.”
“Oh, my. Why him? Why him?” (Another d-tag also would be good here, as it's the third character again.).
“Oh! Apple! Apple sweetheart?”
“My finger is on the trigger, Anderson.”

Here, if you know the characters, it's possible to present this part without any tags, yet it may sounds better if you add some descriptions between them, because three characters are speaking here. But if I would revert to 3rd POV where I should present all three characters and their actions in the very same time, while they're in two different locations (1, Cmdr, 2, Anderson and Rei), I already need to use some descriptions, expressions and even D-tags to give a better presentation.

Guardian wrote:“We've reached deck two. One more to go. Well. I must admit, their hydroponic jungle is beautiful.”
“Cut to the chase, Anderson.”
“No sign of corpses. No sign of survivors, Commander. Nothing. This barge is empty like my belly when our little Reiko is cooking her magic rice.”
“Oh, shut up, Lt.” (A d-tag is already necessary here, as this is a third character).
“I'm proceeding to the bridge with my valiant, yet so defiant escort. Anderson out.”
“Oh, my. Why him? Why him?” (Another d-tag also would be good here, as it's the third character again.).
“Oh! Apple! Apple sweetheart?”
“My finger is on the trigger, Anderson.”

Of course it depends on narrative point of view, among many other aspects whether interspersing action, introspection, or sensation serves as dialogue attribution.

The above in context is a seemingly high tension scene. Interspersing introspective actions, sensations, and cognitions thereof between the lines might slow things down and might not be timely.

However, out of context, the above contrarily illustrates why interspersing action, introspection, and sensation serves to close narrative distance. No one of the above characters in the given context stands out as a focal viewpoint character or reader surrogate.

An attribution tag is of the he said, she thought variety. Naming an addressed person in direct discourse is a free (untagged) method, a salutation. I.e., “No sign of corpses. No sign of survivors, Commander." identifies who's being addressed not who's speaking the dialogue line. "My finger is on the trigger, Anderson." could go one of two ways, Anderson as a call sign identification of the speaker or from the speaker who addresses Anderson. Same with “Cut to the chase, Anderson.” If Anderson is meant to be the focal viewpoint character him expressing thought commentary would close the narrative distance gap and some of the salutations might be unnecessary and still obviate attribution tags.

No one of the above characters in the given context stands out as a focal viewpoint character or reader surrogate.

This is the reason why I used this one and on this way as an example. Here, the focal viewpoint is coming from the surrounding descriptions and the overall presentation what I directly cut from the beginning and the ending and I left only the dialogues. In the original context the focal viewpoint is on the Commander who has only one line in this dialogue sequence. But without surrounding descriptions or even D-tags or A-tags, it's not possible to learn this at all.

I agree with most of y’all, the back and forth dialogue, especially when cluttered with the he said, and she said variety of tags is tiresome. I also think it highlights a certain level of laziness on the writer’s part especially when it’s purely expository and lands in the info dump category.

Another problem is one Guardian mentioned: losing track of who’s speaking. If I have to backtrack more than one section of dialogue to remember whose turn it is to speak, I’m pretty much finished with the book.

A-tags are useful especially if a character has ulterior motives that include the nature of the dialogue. (In one scene, there’s a guy who does a stand-up routine for a captive audience who are trying to figure out which one of them he’s going to murder).

If dialogue doesn’t do all three of these things, I strike it:
• Humanize the characters (number 1)
• Enhance, or at least harmonize with, the setting (the soldier detailed to toss dead donkeys into the river is going to bitch about leaders, not (usually) discuss the finer points of politics)
• Move the story rather than vice-versa (not always apparent to the reader)

Watcher55 wrote:...especially when cluttered with the he said, and she said variety of tags is tiresome.

Doubly so for said-bookisms, though.

Guardian, I love the Harry Potter dialogue, particularly Hagrid’s. Harry’s questions show amazement, not deafness.

I’m with Sommer regarding tags. As both reader and writer, I dislike the bits of business so often attached to dialogue. I like the almost screenplay-like spareness of the dialogue attribution in Michael Crichton’s books, particularly the later ones. I know not everyone agrees.

Margo, clearly said-bookisms raped your cattle and stampeded them through the Vatican at some stage. And yes, I have seen the diagnostic manual. The DSM 4 is one of the most implausible works of nonsense fiction I have ever read, and I hear the fifth edition is going to be even worse. Doorstopping would indeed be the best use for it.

Polymath, you can have as many As You Know Bobs as you like, provided the addressee replies every time - ‘No, I didn’t know that, and my name’s not Bob.’

J. T. SHEA wrote:
Polymath, you can have as many As You Know Bobs as you like, provided the addressee replies every time - ‘No, I didn’t know that, and my name’s not Bob.’

THIS was awesome.

J. T. SHEA wrote:Polymath, you can have as many As You Know Bobs as you like, provided the addressee replies every time - ‘No, I didn’t know that, and my name’s not Bob.’

As you know, apparently, J. T. Shea, artful exceptions contravene any so-called writing rule rather than prove a rule, contrary to mathematics conventions. A First Principle, we can do as we like because it is ours to choose, ours to flounder and flail or soar and transcend. Only, if everyone chooses the same, as As You Know Bobs were overdone not so long ago and still are, then there's monotonous sameness.

J. T. SHEA wrote:The DSM 4 is one of the most implausible works of nonsense fiction I have ever read, and I hear the fifth edition is going to be even worse. Doorstopping would indeed be the best use for it.

Extremely flawed as it is, is it not preferable to leaving the matter to the pharmaceutical companies who want us to believe two-year-olds are bipolar and need to be on $800/month of medication for the rest of their lives? And to fiction that trivializes and stigmatizes mental illness with utterly baseless depictions of 'crazy people' to the point that people refuse to seek help? Not to mention that fact that 'random crazy' comes off as arbitrary and incongruous in fiction.

Any mental health professional worth their salt (which, granted, isn't everyone) knows the history and the drawbacks of the DSM and uses it only as far as it can be used - as a guide, and a list of codes used to fight insurance companies for the right to treat people who cannot afford care any other way.

And finally, I don't want to give the impression that I disapprove of having 'crazy' characters in a novel or even of having those characters be dangerous or acting as the antagonist. I advise only that the writer do their research, so the depictions aren't caricatures.

J. T. SHEA wrote:Guardian, I love the Harry Potter dialogue, particularly Hagrid’s. Harry’s questions show amazement, not deafness.

I know. That was just an example to show what I want to say. As I written it's appeared three times in that novel where it's not a great problem. But this is used to be a problem when you read around 20 additional similar lines. Also, the "A what?" is not truly an amazement, rather a cheap solution to present a surprise (This is only my opinion. But in HP it wasn't that bothering as it was said by a young boy. So there it was rather realistic. But when I read these lines from adult characters, it's used to bother me.).

Margo wrote:

Watcher55 wrote:...especially when cluttered with the he said, and she said variety of tags is tiresome.

Doubly so for said-bookisms, though.

Crazy – a word like any other. (threadism) a convenient word used when the poster is not inclined to consult the DMV the Tax Code or the Expurgated Book of British Birds; usually refers to any character who exhibits erratic behavior consistent with an unidentified chemical imbalance, traumatic brain injury or over-developed proclivity.