Talk:Dialogue in writing

Highly biased article
The pronouncements of this section are apparently handed down on high from some presumptuous wiki editor, rather than any sort of unbiased scholarly information. (Please refer to WP:NPOV.)

Written text does not have the ability to directly express emotion. Much information can be conveyed through tone of voice and body language, while writing down only the text of what is spoken cannot convey everything.

While a writer can verbosely write out a long string of words to approximate the emotions of the moment, as this article says about "As you know Bob" people don't talk this way:


 * Many writers use said-bookisms as substitutes for dramatic speech. Putting the feeling into the words make the said-bookism unnecessary
 * "Come with me," he begged. "They'll kill you."
 * could be altered by putting his begging into his dialogue
 * "I can't bear it, you have to come with me," he said. "If they kill you, it will be all my fault."

A normal person is much more likely to communicate using the first format, conveying meaning through just a few words and expressing the rest as unwritable emotions.

This article should be rewritten to indicate that this writing style is an opinion of certain authors and that there are other views regarding writing style which are potentially as valid as this one.

DMahalko (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah this article is pretty strange, and it definitely isn't a wikipedia article. I'm going to nominate it for deletion once I figure out how... --Orbitingteapot (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

--**Biased for a REASON**--

To do away with any suspense regarding my opinion: The edits to this article are horrible.

I agree with you that normal people are more likely to speak in a certain way, and that the first example you give above may be a better illustration of natural dialogue. However, the fact remains that natural dialogue is not only often boring, but more to the point often inappropriate for the format of fiction where plot needs to be advanced and certain ideas need to be introduced. (Or otherwise cut out for brevity. People often pick up the phone with "hello," and say "goodbye" before hanging up, not to mention a hundred other formalities and niceties of common speech along the way-- but ask yourself how often you see this portrayed completely realistically in a book or on film!)

And sure, perhaps cleaning up this article increased its objectivity a bit. But it took a fairly informative and semi in-depth article and reduced it to a shallow dry treatment which is actually far less educational. Yes, some of what was written is a matter of opinion. But you have to keep in mind that we're talking about fiction, which is an art and not a science. There can never be a completely objective right and wrong. Consensus or majority view is another thing. I have read MANY books on the art of writing, by many different authors. I can't recall the exact number. For now we'll say that it's somewhere above 30 or 40 books not including magazines dedicated to writing, or of course web material. And what I can tell you is that the kind of advice which seemed so offensively subjective to you, is decent professional advice, whether you can see it or not.

Being able to compose good dialogue using the kind of sinfully subjective guidelines you seem so opposed to, and not just writing it the way it would be naturally spoken, is one of the many things that separates an intelligent person with mastery enough of the English language to edit a wikipedia article, from the kind of person who can craft smart and interesting fiction that people actually want to read.

The edits done to this page are a huge disservice to anyone reading the article who might want to learn about how dialogue is actually written. Might as well look up "dialogue" in a dictionary. I'd revert the edits to the original state right now if I didn't imagine I would be out-whined by Uptight Wikipedians who care more about overly rigid notions of objectivity than actually informative, insightful, and ACCURATE (albeit slightly subjective) content. I won't do this mainly because I can't argue the objectivity angle-- though in this case it is a disservice to knowledge to adhere to this rule. Not the first time I've seen some manual-thumping over it, though.

It might have been more fair to force greater objectivity in the form of disclaimer. "Many writing experts agree..." although I understand this isn't perfect either. Individual examples could be pulled from writing manuals with citations given... which I'm sure would satisfy the Uptight Wikipedians at least a little more; though of course that would still be the cited opinion of one individual. Even if such advice is truly widespread. And again I assure you that if you'd read as much on this subject as I have, some of these tips would begin to sound cliche, you hear them SO many times. Sometimes, perhaps, style and craft involve a bit more objectivity than one would think. There are many ways to draw a line. Many styles of art. But there is a "right way" to use shade and light in a picture, and a "wrong way," (sort of.) This is why something like drawing can be taught. Fiction is of course a little more complex. However, the same idea applies.

It just saddens me to see that some feel such an uptight compulsion to adhere to rules, when those rules are working counter to the spirit of the endeavor. But hey, this is wikipedia-- I should be used to that by now.24.34.63.39 (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)