A few weeks ago I wrote about Stephen King’s On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, which is the best book on writing that I have read.  Another that I highly recommend is Stein on Writing by Sol Stein.  The two books are completely different in their approach to writing, as are their authors.  Stein wrote his book after spending many years as an editor of fiction and nonfiction, while also writing novels and plays.  In fact, he began as a playwright.

It is Stein’s background as a playwright that inspires the chapter that had the biggest immediate impact on my writing when I read it a few years ago: “The Secrets of Good Dialogue”.  Stein says that readers enjoy dialogue.  I also enjoy writing it.  It feels alive.  It is immediate.  For the reader, adversarial dialogue can be as exciting as physical action.  It can simultaneously move the story forward and provide insights into characters and their relationships.  Stein also points out, “An often overlooked advantage of dialogue in novels and stories is this simple: it provides white space on the page that makes the reader feel that the story is moving faster because the reader’s eyes move quickly down the page.”

Let me make a few points that I think are some of Stein’s strongest.

Dialogue is not actual speech.  Real speech is boring.  It is repetitive and includes a lot of words that are not necessary.  As Stein says, “Dialogue … is a semblance of speech, an invented language of exchanges that build in tempo or content towards climaxes.”  This is by far the most important point I took from Stein's chapter on dialogue.

Speech is direct.  Dialogue is indirect.  It is oblique.  Here is an example from Under Shōko’s Bed, part of a conversation between Kelly and her daughter Melissa, that is meant to make Kelly a more sympathetic character and which shows largely oblique responses:

Melissa: “… What’s up?”

Kelly: “I just can’t sleep.”

“The place is empty and silent and you’re climbing the walls.”

“The police have no idea what to do.  It’s like he vanished into thin air.  They’re totally lost.”

“He’ll turn up.  Like you said before, he’s decompressing.”

“But where?”  Kelly’s voice cracked.

“We just have to be patient.”

“The worst part is, I’m no help.  I don’t know a single place to look.  I know him better than anyone, and I’m useless!”

Melissa laughed.  “Mom, if there’s one thing you will never be, it’s useless.”

“Here, I am.”

The example above feels very much like real speech, and responses are in line with what the other person just said, but little of it shows direct response.

Of course, some of the questions in dialogue are direct and require an answer, but Stein suggests that even those types of questions can be reworded in a way that makes an oblique response work.

“Dialogue is lean language in which every word counts.”  I believe what Stein says, but it is still difficult.  When I am editing, I set a goal (generally 5-25 percent) for how much each section of dialogue should be shortened and I look for exchanges to delete that do not move the story forward.  One of the simplest ways to shorten speech is to eliminate echos, where one character repeats some of what the other has just said.  It will not all disappear, as echos are so common in real speech, but they can be reduced until almost none remain.  In the quest to make each person’s speech as tight as possible, though, the next major point comes into play.  Speech’s ability to serve as a marker, an indicator of background, social class, etc. is more important than making the character’s speech as succinct as possible.

Speech can serve as a marker that differentiates characters.  Characters should not all talk the same.  The character’s speech should match his or her background.  Stein says that different vocabulary, throwaway words and phrases, tight or loose wording, shorter or longer sentences, sarcasm, cynicism, poor grammar, omitted words, and inappropriate modifiers are all markers in speech that can differentiate characters.  Even jargon can serve as “a marker of stuffiness.”

“What counts is not what is said but the effect of what is meant.”  When judging the effectiveness of dialogue: “The best way to judge dialogue read aloud is to read it in a monotone without expression.  The words have to do the job.”  Stein also provides a a few questions to help in identifying dialogue that works versus dialogue that is extraneous:

• What is the purpose of this exchange?  Does it begin or heighten an existing conflict?
• Does it stimulate the reader’s curiosity?
• Does the exchange create tension?
• Does the dialogue build to a climax or a turn of events in the story or a change in relationship of the speakers?

“Dialect is annoying to the reader.”  “Spelling out pronunciations … is almost always a bad choice.”   But even without dialect, word order, rhythm, omitted words, inappropriate modifiers, etc. can be effective in marking the character.

I feel a little like I am cheating to focus only on one short chapter from a book that is full of wonderful insights, but I may return to Stein on Writing for a future blog post.