Anyone who bowls knows that the way to get a strike is to put the ball in the pocket, just off the center pin. If you put the ball right down the middle, you get a split. Well, dialogue is the same way. It works best if it's a little off-center, by which I mean that with dialogue what doesn't get said is as interesting as what does get said. It's the starts and stalls, the ellisions, that are often most characterizing.
Back when I was a kid, there was a Saturday Night Live skit called "Mister Slow-Reaction Man." Well, you get the idea. Dialogue is the same way. A character says something, and another character responds to something that was said a few lines earlier, or responds to only part of what was said. Characters listen to each other, but not fully. Good dialogue is glancing--characters talking past each other. If you want some good contemporary examples of this, I'd look at the work of Tobias Wolff and Charles Baxter, great dialogue-writers both. In my student stories, I see the kernel of really strong dialogue, but it's embedded in too much connecive tissue. There are too many full-sentences--the scene reads like the transcript of an interview with Connie Chung. Often it's just a matter of cutting out the waste. In fact, this is true of the work in general. I will sometimes take a student story and tell the writer, before I've even looked at the story, "OK, now cut it by 30 percent." It's a rare student story that doesn't improve that way. And not just student stories. I believe in working with a word-count. It's amazing what happens when someone forces you to trim the fat.
You said you enjoy working with a word count. Typically, how many words would you prescribe?
Posted by: Ryan | November 14, 2007 at 06:26 AM