Monday, August 08, 2005
Exposition: dialogue (Part 2 of 2)
The second kind of expositional dialogue is when both characters already know the information, whether it's about backstory, conflict, relationships, setting, or details about themselves/other characters. One character is not trying to get or give information to/from another character. Even so, it is information the writer wants the reader to have. More importantly, the writer has carefully determined it is information the reader wants to have. (A vital distinction.)
If both characters already know the information, then why talk about it with each other? The characters need to be strongly motivated. If they aren't, then the dialogue will feel stiff and grossly unnatural. Characters will find words in their mouths real people would never utter, like:
Not only is it improbable either character has forgotten such a life-altering event, but where is the motivation for bringing up the subject? A good question to ask of any dialogue containing shared information is: "What does the speaker hope to accomplish?"
It's far better to give the characters immediate motivations for discussing things they both already know. Expositional dialogue, from the standpoint of the character, is a weapon wielded in a war of ideas and opinions. The information is used to thrust, parry, feint, and advance a particular standpoint or belief. In one word, it's about conflict--either internal or external.
In Frank Peretti's Monster, Reed and Beck are alone together in the woods, when horrifying noises shatter the night. Both are terrified, but trying not to show it in front of each other. Reed latches onto a shared memory from their past and uses it to convince Beck someone is pulling a harmless prank on them.
In this passage, the horrible noises motivate Reed to remind Beck of this information from their shared past. Her hesitancy to share his conclusions serves as conflict. He has to convince her by recalling more and more information until she believes him and calms down, which is his goal.
Peretti breaks up the information into one or two sentences at a time, keeping the reader focused on Beck's immediate reaction rather than on the information from years ago. This way, the information accomplishes its purpose of characterizing Reed and Beck's faith (they went to church as young adults) and their relationship with their friends, without stopping the story. In the immediate situation, this short exchange also works to build the stakes, when the couple later decides their friends wouldn't betray their trust with a prank--which leaves them with a much scarier explanation of the noises.
Next, using flashbacks to reveal exposition.
(To be continued…)
If both characters already know the information, then why talk about it with each other? The characters need to be strongly motivated. If they aren't, then the dialogue will feel stiff and grossly unnatural. Characters will find words in their mouths real people would never utter, like:
"Do you remember the vacation we took to Yosemite four years ago, where you slipped on a wet rock, plunged over a waterfall, and broke both your legs?"
"I sure do. You fell in love with my doctor, Jack, and had a whirlwind courtship. Now you and Jack are married, have a set of twins, and just moved into your new home."
Not only is it improbable either character has forgotten such a life-altering event, but where is the motivation for bringing up the subject? A good question to ask of any dialogue containing shared information is: "What does the speaker hope to accomplish?"
It's far better to give the characters immediate motivations for discussing things they both already know. Expositional dialogue, from the standpoint of the character, is a weapon wielded in a war of ideas and opinions. The information is used to thrust, parry, feint, and advance a particular standpoint or belief. In one word, it's about conflict--either internal or external.
In Frank Peretti's Monster, Reed and Beck are alone together in the woods, when horrifying noises shatter the night. Both are terrified, but trying not to show it in front of each other. Reed latches onto a shared memory from their past and uses it to convince Beck someone is pulling a harmless prank on them.
"It's a joke," he insisted...
She longed for him to be right.
He kept trying. "Don't you remember when we were going to United Christian and we went to that party for the young couples' group?"
"Sure."
"We all went for that hayride in the back of George Johnson's truck--"
"A-a-and the truck b-broke down, and a bear came out of the w-woods." Her nerves calmed. "And it was just what's-his-name--"
"Mr. Farmer wearing that bear rug." Reed snickered. "But you sure were scared."
"I was young! And so were you!"
In this passage, the horrible noises motivate Reed to remind Beck of this information from their shared past. Her hesitancy to share his conclusions serves as conflict. He has to convince her by recalling more and more information until she believes him and calms down, which is his goal.
Peretti breaks up the information into one or two sentences at a time, keeping the reader focused on Beck's immediate reaction rather than on the information from years ago. This way, the information accomplishes its purpose of characterizing Reed and Beck's faith (they went to church as young adults) and their relationship with their friends, without stopping the story. In the immediate situation, this short exchange also works to build the stakes, when the couple later decides their friends wouldn't betray their trust with a prank--which leaves them with a much scarier explanation of the noises.
Next, using flashbacks to reveal exposition.
(To be continued…)
