Of BL Writers and Dialogue - what makes and breaks?

[bluntblade]

This is a little in the spirit of the Abnett thread from a few months back. This isn't meant to be an attack on certain authors, but there are some whose dialogue scenes instantly turn me off. There's something a bit blunt-force about the exposition that the author is trying to communicate.

 

The into to Deeds Endure is a good example. The dialogue feels like it's ticking things off - the ranks of the Iron Hands, the situation, character names, location, ship names - and it feels weighed down by the information it is trying to convey. Characters take the time to call one another things like "Spearhead-Centurion" and specify the name of the planet whose surface they've been blocked from, which makes the dialogue lumpen and saps tension. It's like trying to swallow some very stodgy food, and spoils the intended effect of an in media res opening.

 

Identifying good dialogue scenes is trickier for me, but I think a light touch is key. Perhaps a good way to look at it is that a dialogue scene shouldn't feel like one. It should just be another scene, with things happening as well as being said. A character can act as well as talk.

[Roomsky]

I think authors confuse "show don't tell" for "if a character says it, it's not exposition." There's a plot in mind and characters exist to further the plot and only that. Good dialogue will probably still have relevance, but the important bits will be hidden in conversations about something else. Certainly much of it is non-quantifiable, there aren't really a set list of "good" words and phrases. 

 

As far as I'm aware the most beneficial approach is to write characters first, and let their interactions move the plot rather than writing the plot first and forcing the characters to advance it. 

[Xisor]

There's a scene in "Blood Reaver" in which Talos and a couple of others have a chat whilst some other stuff is going on in the background (waking up a Dreadnought, if memory serves), that has a line "I had a dog, once" in it.

 

It's in some respects an info dump, bit it's the sort that is naturally occurring - when a person actually goes off on a tangent. It's in some ways not integral to the ABC of the plot but, in my esteem, it's also the very definition of the plot.

 

My mind always returns there when I think of characters and what they do and why they do any of it. Not very scene need be about odd tangents, but I find writing that is *too* functional to be difficult to believe, or indeed: enjoy.

 

Some characters will be boring and useless as conversationalist (see Chris Wraight's Ludwig Schwarzhelm, and Guy Haley's Ultramarine/Novamarine whose name I continually forget), but that needn't mean their story is boring.

 

That lends itself to extremely interesting dialogue: either because it is witty, or it is because it's an insight into characters who're witless in some varying degrees.

 

For functional dialogue, I'm sympathetic to info-dumps too, but I find myself more appreciative of:

 

"I arrived at the briefing. The commander stated the planet and the situation, which I took in passively, but my mind wandered..."

 

Obv not that exactly, but that idea. ADB and others do a great line in it by skipping scenes from time to time.

 

Simply: set up the idea and importance, but if it ultimately a perfunctory scene in itself, skip straight to characters chatting in the aftermath.

[bluntblade]

It is possible for a character to simply exposit to another and have it work, so long as it's done well. There's one in Scars where Ilya is bluntly told by Qin Xa that Warp storms can be created, but it works because Wraight leads us in with some atmosphere and character work - Xa's calligraphy and mediation - and there's another current running through the scene. Ilya - and by extension, we - learns more about the Scars' beliefs and has to deal with how they conflict with her own worldview. Having Qin Xa deliver it is also a good move, as it means a supporting character is growing, and he's a somewhat left field choice for a guy to clue someone in on the mystical mechanics of the universe. More hidden depths in a book that pretty much runs on them. 

[Marshal Rohr]

This is a little in the spirit of the Abnett thread from a few months back. This isn't meant to be an attack on certain authors, but there are some whose dialogue scenes instantly turn me off. There's something a bit blunt-force about the exposition that the author is trying to communicate.

 

The into to Deeds Endure is a good example. The dialogue feels like it's ticking things off - the ranks of the Iron Hands, the situation, character names, location, ship names - and it feels weighed down by the information it is trying to convey. Characters take the time to call one another things like "Spearhead-Centurion" and specify the name of the planet whose surface they've been blocked from, which makes the dialogue lumpen and saps tension. It's like trying to swallow some very stodgy food, and spoils the intended effect of an in media res opening.

 

Identifying good dialogue scenes is trickier for me, but I think a light touch is key. Perhaps a good way to look at it is that a dialogue scene shouldn't feel like one. It should just be another scene, with things happening as well as being said. A character can act as well as talk.

You should always call people by their specific rank in a formal briefing. In business and the military. It’s professional and eliminates confusion.

[bluntblade]

Maybe, but in fiction it tends to get in the way. Especially if it's just a few individuals.

[A D-B]

I think authors confuse "show don't tell" for "if a character says it, it's not exposition." There's a plot in mind and characters exist to further the plot and only that. Good dialogue will probably still have relevance, but the important bits will be hidden in conversations about something else. Certainly much of it is non-quantifiable, there aren't really a set list of "good" words and phrases. 

 

As far as I'm aware the most beneficial approach is to write characters first, and let their interactions move the plot rather than writing the plot first and forcing the characters to advance it. 

 

It's the same way the first few minutes of any Babylon 5 episode are almost unwatchable, because (usually) Ivanova will baldly (and blandly) state "It's like when X..." or "So we're doing A because of B..." in this cringeworthy expositional summation of what's either going on or about to happen. Characters can learn things, or discuss them, or argue over them, or even have stuff explained to them. That's natural. But remember they're people in those situations, with their own angles and aspects and thoughts, not avatars to facilitate plot.

 

There's nothing tackier than covering exposition by falsely cementing it into dialogue, and it's a classic trope in bad TV sci-fi (or bad moments of good TV sci-fi). I've put more than one novel down because of "As you know, Bob..."

[Loesh]

 

he best way to go about those kind of things if you need to catch people up, or you want to make that kind of connection, is to do it in thought. Not big blocky chunks of thought as, one of my problems with some recent books is that they try to introduce every facet of something at once, but bits spread out over the course of the book that tell you about an item, an event. or an idea. One of my favorites in the Fabius Bile series is the little bits we learn about the incident with Lemearan Proxies over time.

 

This can be especially painful in a trilogy, perhaps it's irrational but I don't feel like something needs multiple introductions in every book after, not beyond a small snippet about what it is anyway.

[bluntblade]

Mortarion and Horus in PoH strikes me as that method done well, because it's all in the context of a mission being given, and an argument.

[Ascanius]

Damn it, AD-B, I was gonna make the "As you know, Bob . . ." reference.

 

 

You should always call people by their specific rank in a formal briefing. In business and the military. It’s professional and eliminates confusion.

 

I don't disagree with the military example, but what on Terra do you mean by "in business"? "Good question, Vice-President of Marketing and Communications"? I can just about see addressing the chairman of the board as "Chairman" being normal, but otherwise?

 

Of course, being Australian, I've never called any boss I've ever worked for by anything other than their first name, so . . .

 

On the main topic:

 

This is definitely one of the things which I feel separates the novice writer from the journeyman. Experience teaches writers to convey necessary information in the way a scene is framed, shifting between dialogue and internal thoughts of the viewpoint character and omniscient narration to best effect. No character should ever recite information known to all involved in the conversation unless it's what they would actually do in that situation.

 

For instance, in a briefing, omniscient narration can describe a hololithic display of the planet the mission will take place on to let the reader know its name; the viewpoint character can observe and react to details like toxic atmospheres or inhospitable terrain formations, in the context of noting down for themselves the problems they'll be facing; the dialogue from the briefing officer can lay out other details that aren't displayed to everyone in the room on the hololith, like mission parameters or whathaveyou.

 

At minimum, if you really can't think of a better way to get the information across, make it a character tic; Jim is the sort of guy who has to go over the details multiple times, aloud, as a coping mechanism for stress or something, and your viewpoint character Bob goes along with it while rolling his eyes and thinking to himself that everyone knows this . . .

 

Even then, you don't have Jim say, "As you know, Bob . . ." because the point is that Jim isn't thinking about the fact that everyone knows the information he's going over again.

[Marshal Rohr]

Damn it, AD-B, I was gonna make the "As you know, Bob . . ." reference.

 

 

 

You should always call people by their specific rank in a formal briefing. In business and the military. It’s professional and eliminates confusion.

I don't disagree with the military example, but what on Terra do you mean by "in business"? "Good question, Vice-President of Marketing and Communications"? I can just about see addressing the chairman of the board as "Chairman" being normal, but otherwise?

 

Of course, being Australian, I've never called any boss I've ever worked for by anything other than their first name, so . . .

 

On the main topic:

 

This is definitely one of the things which I feel separates the novice writer from the journeyman. Experience teaches writers to convey necessary information in the way a scene is framed, shifting between dialogue and internal thoughts of the viewpoint character and omniscient narration to best effect. No character should ever recite information known to all involved in the conversation unless it's what they would actually do in that situation.

 

For instance, in a briefing, omniscient narration can describe a hololithic display of the planet the mission will take place on to let the reader know its name; the viewpoint character can observe and react to details like toxic atmospheres or inhospitable terrain formations, in the context of noting down for themselves the problems they'll be facing; the dialogue from the briefing officer can lay out other details that aren't displayed to everyone in the room on the hololith, like mission parameters or whathaveyou.

 

At minimum, if you really can't think of a better way to get the information across, make it a character tic; Jim is the sort of guy who has to go over the details multiple times, aloud, as a coping mechanism for stress or something, and your viewpoint character Bob goes along with it while rolling his eyes and thinking to himself that everyone knows this . . .

 

Even then, you don't have Jim say, "As you know, Bob . . ." because the point is that Jim isn't thinking about the fact that everyone knows the information he's going over again.

Ok maybe not that specific, more like ‘Vice President Johnson will lead the project’ instead of ‘the Vice President’ or ‘Johnson’

[Roomsky]

This is only semi-related, but I noticed it again recently while reading The Palatine Phoenix (great otherwise, by the way). Does anyone else have trouble keeping up with scenes where multiple characters are established at once? In the above example, while it's an easy time getting to know Pyke, Fulgrim, and Abdemon, Reynolds tries to establish the rest of them all at once with some banter. Maybe its just because Space Marine names tend to be so out of the ordinary, but I frequently lost track of who was who.

 

Anyone else experience this?

[mc warhammer]

This is only semi-related, but I noticed it again recently while reading The Palatine Phoenix (great otherwise, by the way). Does anyone else have trouble keeping up with scenes where multiple characters are established at once? In the above example, while it's an easy time getting to know Pyke, Fulgrim, and Abdemon, Reynolds tries to establish the rest of them all at once with some banter. Maybe its just because Space Marine names tend to be so out of the ordinary, but I frequently lost track of who was who.

 

Anyone else experience this?

yeah but i don’t think that’s specific to black library- similar situations other books result in the same haze of confusion for my poor little brain

 

it took me two go’s of “dunkirk” before i could tell anyone apart other than kenneth branagh

[Ascanius]

 

Ok maybe not that specific, more like ‘Vice President Johnson will lead the project’ instead of ‘the Vice President’ or ‘Johnson’

 

Ah, I get it. Referring to people by titles, rather than addressing them by title. Gotcha.

[b1soul]

The bad dialogue in BL is usually very wooden amd everyone speaks with the same tone

[Indefragable]

Talk to any real world military Operator and 95% of all dialogue in your typical Call of Duty-sequel game is completely made up...

 

...because most of that conversation doesn’t need to happen. Team members who live, breathe, and train together don’t need to verbalize or self-commentate on their or their teams actions. They know where they are supposed to be, or what side of the door to post up on, or that they should use bounding overwatch when approaching a suspected enemy position.

 

...but that is so realistic that it actually confuses the audience. The audience

 

1. Doesn’t always know what’s going on unless they have it explained to some degree

2. Has been shown the wrong thing so often that the wrong thing has become the right thing to a certain degree, so much so that it HAS to be included otherwise it won’t be believed.

 

Think of a pro football (soccer for my fellow Americans) match where the goalie yells or for the midfielder to be ready because he is going to pass the ball to him...it would be comical in real life because umm...yea...that’s our jobs, dude. Of course I’m ready for you to pass the ball. ...yet as an audience we sometimes “need” a little something to make sure we don’t get lost.

 

That’s my roundabout way of saying that I personally am a bit forgiving of stories where there happens to be a new guy who needs the entire force org conveniently explained to him.

 

Think of Star Wars: how many times are we explained what exactly the Force is? Obi-Wan has a fairly direct exposition in A New Hope. Yet no one complains about that in part because in the entire series, that’s really the only time that level of explanation comes up (I haven’t seen Rogue One or Last Jedi). And, Star Wars has a relatively small cast of characters compared to something like the Horus Heresy. The HH has so many different things happening and so many players of all different levels, that even we addicted rabid fans need to be thrown an Org Chart bone once in a while.

 

Though I would certainly also state that there are many ways that a clever author can convey the same information without being so direct about it. Or as another thought, perhaps if it needs to be explained so directly, it does not belong in the story? Arguable of course.

[bluntblade]

 

This is only semi-related, but I noticed it again recently while reading The Palatine Phoenix (great otherwise, by the way). Does anyone else have trouble keeping up with scenes where multiple characters are established at once? In the above example, while it's an easy time getting to know Pyke, Fulgrim, and Abdemon, Reynolds tries to establish the rest of them all at once with some banter. Maybe its just because Space Marine names tend to be so out of the ordinary, but I frequently lost track of who was who.

Anyone else experience this?

yeah but i don’t think that’s specific to black library- similar situations other books result in the same haze of confusion for my poor little brain

it took me two go’s of “dunkirk” before i could tell anyone apart other than kenneth branagh

But then Dunkirk is so light on dialogue, I'd say it's a different matter altogether.

[mc warhammer]

 

 

This is only semi-related, but I noticed it again recently while reading The Palatine Phoenix (great otherwise, by the way). Does anyone else have trouble keeping up with scenes where multiple characters are established at once? In the above example, while it's an easy time getting to know Pyke, Fulgrim, and Abdemon, Reynolds tries to establish the rest of them all at once with some banter. Maybe its just because Space Marine names tend to be so out of the ordinary, but I frequently lost track of who was who.

Anyone else experience this?

yeah but i don’t think that’s specific to black library- similar situations other books result in the same haze of confusion for my poor little brain

it took me two go’s of “dunkirk” before i could tell anyone apart other than kenneth branagh

But then Dunkirk is so light on dialogue, I'd say it's a different matter altogether.

 

 

 

fair enough, it's not specific to dialogue. i just meant it in the general sense that when characters are introduced en masse, it can get confusing. especially if extra care isn't made to differentiate them (though i've read that it might have been intentional on nolan's part)

[bluntblade]

Fair enough, and I guess that's a point where the risk of "you person, who does this and is like this" dialogue is quite high.

[Petitioner's City]

I must admit I *love* the exposition dialogue in Kojima's Metal Gear Solid franchise - I think it is utterly magnificent and artistic. So im not averse to telling over showing, if the ideas within are that damn good or else captivating.

 

But such soliloqueys and monologues arent so often found in prose, I guess.

[mc warhammer]

reading magnus at the mo, and the term “mothballing” threw me a little. do mothballs exist in 30k? is the term that powerful that it survived from the 20th century till the great crusade? does morningstar have moths?

[Fire Golem]

By that logic though the whole lexicon would probably be almost unrecognizable by the Great Crusade.

[mc warhammer]

yeah, but also nah. you’re right in general , but “mothballing” is very much a 20th century term and very specific to ....mothballs.

 

it may survive for centuries to the point where it no longer makes literal sense and only figurative, like “beat around the bush” or “rule of thumb”, or “scot free” (skot free originally), but in all those cases we still have bushes, thumbs and taxes to sorta reference them, even if the meaning has changed.

 

it’s possible, it just stuck out (to me) that the term had survived and was still relevant. or if the term was simply a great crusade /30k equivalent, then what could its actual origin be? in a fictional world where journalists are called remembrancers, it seemed an odd thing. maybe there are similar examples i missed?

 

in any case, i’m looking forward to horus describing the siege as “lit”, remembrancers tagging the sisters of silence as “girl squad” and the space wolves calling each other “doggo” and “pupper” in private

[Xisor]

Mothballing isn't exactly *slang*. Including "modern" slang dates things terribly, but it's also not exactly without precedent or utility.

 

Anachronisms can persist. Especially when they step away from their literal meaning into figurative or abstract territory.

 

----

 

Incidentally - I was yammering the other day about the *glorious* British paratrooper in "Captain Corelli's Mandolin". The bulk of the cast all speak Greek or Italian, but being British and an Oxbridge type put suspiciously above his competence, he can only communicate with the local shepherd boy via...

 

His knowledge of Ancient Greek.

 

So his dialogue (in a book written in English, But about Greek-speaking folk) is rendered all as "hark, forsooth" ye olde Englishe.

 

It's a great technique, and one I think BL writers are missing a trick on for when characters are ostensibly out of their element or out of their time.

 

For example: Dark Imperium's Guilliman could benefit from a lot of archaic turn of phrase and peculiar mannerisms. :)

[Sandlemad]

Good idea and not one used much in BL fiction. Worked well in Moby Dick! More thees and thous would have been great for the Carcharodons in particular, either as a means of rendering high gothic or to show their weirdly archaic manners shining through in their low gothic.

 

I can think of more and better examples of writers playing these kinds of dialogue tricks to emphasis other more explicit examples of verbal weirdness. Something as simple and textual as Wraight (or the editor?) rendering Bjorn's grinding dreadnought speech in ALL CAPS throughout Battle of the Fang was cool. There's good mileage with Mechanicus/Mechanicum and daemon speech but what potential does Necron dialogue have? There's surely interesting ways of conveying that that this necron lord is an ancient being who has seen suns die, etc, etc beyond stating it.