Breaking Writing Rules Right: "Don't Write Direct Dialogue!"
Over the years, I’ve done a lot of posts on dialogue, in part because when I went searching for a deeper understanding on the topic, I didn’t find a lot of material. One of the recurring things I did find though, was about writing indirect dialogue. And this is absolutely one of the best places to start, when learning how to craft better dialogue. Dialogue should always be saying and doing more than what’s on the page.
Naturally, this means incorporating indirection.
Which plays closely into subtext.
But a few times I’ve been asked, when is it okay to use direct dialogue? For this post, I have at least four answers.
Don’t write direct dialogue!
Usually the best dialogue considers what the character doesn’t say, and how. In other words, subtext. When subtext happens, the dialogue is bigger than what’s on the page–a quality that seems to be key to drawing in readers and writing a great story.
And in reality, most of us do talk indirectly. And we are always revealing more about ourselves than what we say (whether or not we want to). Interestingly, the more powerful emotions we feel, the more indirect we tend to be.
Indirect dialogue also holds more tension. (This again draws us in.)
On the flip side, direct dialogue releases tension, something we rarely want to do.
And when we talk about powerful emotions directly (and disproportionately), they can actually lose power. This is one of the many facets of the “show, don’t tell” rule. Talking about powerful emotions directly in dialogue, labels, or in other words, “tells” them, which usually is not as satisfying as showing them so they can be experienced by the reader.
Direct dialogue also means one-dimensional dialogue. What you see (or read), is what you get. This turns the reader into more of a spectator, instead of a participator, in the story (and we want participation).
But a lot of beginning writers write direct dialogue–we probably all did. Writing indirect dialogue is a skill–it takes study and practice (and more practice).
In case anyone isn’t quite sure what I mean about direct vs. indirect, here is a quick example:
“You’re an idiot, Shelly,” Jasmine said.
“You wouldn’t know this, but I don’t do much writing anymore,” Jasmine said. “Those days are over. I use what are called ‘ghost writers,’ Shelly. People I hire to do the writing for me. I like to sit back and brainstorm a few concepts with a glass of champagne. Do you know what 'brainstorming’ is?”
“Yes,” Shelly said.
Jasmine simpered. “You’re smarter than I was expecting.”
In the second example, Jasmine implies she thinks Shelly is an idiot in the way she talks to her (in bold).
I realize this example takes up a lot more space–and sometimes being indirect does.
But, as the story builds upon itself, strengthening context, you can be clearly indirect in less space. For example, if the reader went into the scene knowing that Shelly is a world-renowned writer and that Jasmine is stuck up, then a line like “Do you know what 'brainstorming’ is?”–is all we need. (Obviously Shelly knows that, so Jasmine saying that is like slap in the face.)
The majority of dialogue should be indirect. That’s just the way it is. But that’s not necessarily the same as never being direct. So when is it a good idea to say it like it is?
1. When You Want to Release Tension
Indirect dialogue holds tension.
Direct dialogue does not.
When you move from indirect to direct, it releases tension.
And sometimes that is exactly what you need.
It’s the same thing in story structure. You start with your hook and introduction, go to the rising action and climax, and finish it up with the falling action/denouement. Or to put simply: introduce tension, build tension, release tension.
The denouement is all about releasing tension–that’s why loose ends are tied up (generally speaking).
