This chapter includes some dialogue tips and a rant on realism. Since there is so much that goes into dialogue, do not expect this chapter to cover everything. More dialogue chapters are to come.

I will make a chapter about what should be happening around dialogue (character expressions, actions, body language, etc.), so if you're going to request that, rest easy knowing that's already planned.

This chapter took a while because it's the longest and required a lot of explanation. I hope you enjoy.

There's also a The Last Of Us Part 2 rant, so prepare yourself for that.

Read the disclaimer if you haven't already.

Can you do something but can't explain how you do it?

I'm sure everyone has something they do that they can't put into words how to do.

I'm like that with dialogue. When it comes to plot, I need to tweak some things. When it comes to hooks, I need to tweak some things. But the two things I'm confident with are characters and dialogue. My dialogue sounds realistic and sometimes painful (in a good way... I think).

Characters and their dynamics with each other are my two biggest strengths. You see, I can explain characters.

I can't explain dialogue to save my life.

So when I judge contests, sometimes I say the dialogue sounds clunky. What exactly does that mean? When I say the dialogue sounds clunky, I mean it sounds unpolished, a bit clumsy, and/or awkward.

Let me (try) to explain.

There is so much that goes into dialogue, but for now, let's break it down, shall we? I'll go over three things. 

1) Concise dialogue 

2) Greetings and goodbyes 

3) Realism

1) Concise Dialogue

Conciseness is key. Keeping your dialogue concise is the perfect way to keep a reader engaged. Redundancy is one key element in poor pacing. If you're repeating yourself in dialogue, it's going to be hard for readers to follow you.

One way to make dialogue more concise is to consider contractions. Contractions exist to make words and sentences flow better, not to mention contractions help make things sound less like an order and more like a conversation.

For example:

"Let's go, I'm tired."

Compared to:

"Let us go, I am tired."

One of these flows better. I'll give you a hint: it's not the second one.

I have read the writing of many people who are not native English speakers. I applaud them for writing in English! That's an incredible feat. Most of them have better English than me-

Anyway, I brought that up to say many of these writers don't use as many contractions as they should. It's not their fault. English is a complex language, and picking up on things like contractions is easy for a native speaker, but not so much for a non-native speaker.

I understand, to a certain extent. Korean is my second language, and sometimes writing in it is hard because of the speech styles and deciding which one would work best for the situation. The same applies for English.

My recommendation would be to read sentences out loud and see if they would sound better with or without contractions. You don't have to exclusively use contractions or exclusively not use contractions. Just listen to the sentence and see what flows better, and also keep in mind the level of formality. For example, most English speakers don't use contractions in professional emails or on essays.

I use many different writing programs, and one of which is Scrivener. Scrivener has a text-to-speech option that allows me to listen to my stories so I don't have to physically read it myself. There are many programs and websites that do this for you. I would recommend looking into them so you can improve your editing.

Obviously, dialogue is spoken. That's why I recommend reading it out loud!

Now, let's move into something else. Conciseness doesn't just come from contractions, it also comes from redundancy.

When it comes to any type of writing, not just dialogue, you shouldn't repeat the same thing twice. 

I don't mean repeating the same thing word-for-word, Most people aren't going to say "Jimin was sad. Jimin was sad." No, they do this:

"Jimin was sad. He wasn't feeling happy."

That's what I mean; people phrase the same idea in a slightly different way. The sentences are different, but they're saying the same exact thing. Every sentence should bring something new to the story. You should be building on what you said, not repeating it.

One of the hardest parts of writing is trusting your audience. I still struggle with this, especially with fanfiction.

You need to trust your audience to understand what you're saying. You don't need to repeat things over and over again. Trust your audience to pay attention to what you're writing. Not only will the audience like you more (audiences like it when writers treat them as if they have brains), but it will also keep the pacing even and the story flowing.

If the audience isn't paying attention and they don't pick up on what you're writing, that's not your fault.

I mean, if you're being too vague, yeah it is, but I think you get what I mean.

If you're giving the readers what they need, it's not your fault if they don't understand it.

Let's talk about Captain America: Civil War, the airport scene. Many people complained and said there was no explanation as to why it was happening. AKA: they were criticizing it for not setting up why there was no one at the airport.

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed they did set it up.

Shortly before the fight, an announcement comes on over the PA system saying the airport is being evacuated. Bucky, the one who can understand many foreign languages, is the one to translate and tell the team what's happening.

I think this is a case where the audience got too excited for the fight that they forgot about the lines that happened before it. Through dialogue, the writers showed the audience the airport was being evacuated. I can't find the scene on YouTube and I'm far too lazy to open D+, so you'll have to take my word for it, but that scene does happen. It sets up the fight in a way that makes sense for the characters (having Bucky be the one to translate). The same applies here: trust your audience, and if they don't understand, it's not your fault.

That's why you should keep your dialogue concise.

The final point I'd like to make is repetitive language in dialogue. Let me give an example off the top of my head:

"I love burgers because burgers taste great."

That's a terrible example, but it's hard to think off the top of my head.

Look at this sentence and tell me why "burgers" is used twice. Can you think of a reason? Probably not because it isn't necessary.

Burgers is the subject of the sentence; you don't need to repeat it. An alternative would be:

"I love burgers because they taste great."

Redundancy is the enemy of writers. You don't need to repeat things. For example, I see many people say something like this:

"I got in the car and drove it away."

You don't need the "it." It flows much smoother if you say something like: "I got in the car and drove away." See how much better it sounds? It's less redundant.

There are also filler words you should consider cutting out of your story. The word "that" is a common filler word. Most authors don't realize this, but most of the "that's" they use can be cut from their writing.

For example:

"She grabbed the notebook that was in her locker."

You can rearrange it to say this:

"She grabbed the notebook in her locker."

If you read it out loud, you'll notice the version without "that" flows smoother.

Of course, sometimes "that" is needed, but try reading sentences out loud with and without "that" to see what sounds better.

I cut three uses of "that" out of this chapter alone.

Some more examples of filler words are: just, still, totally

Long story short: try not to repeat yourself.

Listen, I'm an over explainer and this book is proof of that. The realism section of this chapter is proof of that. I understand feeling the need to over explain or include things that may be redundant. I do that in my daily life, but there's a difference between doing it in a writing guide/with friends and doing it in creative writing. I strongly recommend being selective with what sentences and words you use in your stories.

2) Greetings & Goodbyes

If you've watched literally any movie ever, you'll notice that, in most cases, the characters don't waste time saying hi or bye to each other.

Yes, it is realistic for us to say hi and bye to our friends, teachers, co-workers, bosses, etc., but that doesn't mean you have to do it in the realm of fiction.

I'll talk more about realism in the third section.

If you can cut greetings and goodbyes out of your text, you're likely better off. It's not a hard set rule that you should never include hi's or bye's in your writing, but you should avoid them since they can slow the pacing and waste the audience's time.

I know it doesn't sound like a big deal to include an extra word or two, but why include them if they aren't going to add anything to the story? You're not writing a biography, you're writing a fictional narrative.

Again, I know it doesn't sound like an issue, but if it's not doing anything, why include it in the first place? You control every word you put on the page, why waste them if they aren't contributing to the story?

I hope you enjoyed this short section because the next one is long 💀

3) Realism

Okay, I know this might be a "hot take," but it's true.

A story isn't good just because it's realistic. 

So this tip is both for dialogue and worldbuilding. It's a two-in-one, if you will. Let me explain.

Just because a story realistically captures certain aspects of life does not mean it is automatically good. Fiction is fiction for a reason: it's a narrative. I'm not reading a book expecting to see the most accurate description of eating a bagel I've ever read. I don't care. I'm reading a story. If I wanted to see something 100% realistic to real life, I'd watch a documentary or read an autobiography.

I'm a film major. One of the first things we studied was the history of film, and realism is part of that. There were a series of filmmakers and films that made everything so realistic to the point where there was no editing. You would watch characters walk from point A to point B, you would hear their sniffles, you would see them yawn, etc. There were no cuts. The films were hours upon hours long.

Not many people liked those movies, and they died out quickly. Why? Because realistic is not synonymous with good.

The biggest example of bad realism is The Last Of Us 2.

Spoilers ahead.

It is no secret that I adore The Last Of Us but dislike The Last Of Us Part 2. Although The Last Of Us Part 2 is not as bad as some say it is, it does not have a good narrative due to its obsession with realism.

If you like TLOU2, please don't be offended by my opinion. You can like and dislike whatever you want, just like how I can like and dislike whatever I want.

Here come the spoilers, you've been warned. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, feel free to skip to the bolded *** marks you'll see below (or read my explanation anyway, whatever you want to do).

Spoilers Start

Let's talk about Joel's death.

I have no problem with Joel dying. In fact, I expected it to happen. However, it did not happen in a good way. It was full of contrivances that forced it to happen rather than having it happen naturally.

The biggest defense I see for Joel's death is, "Well, it was realistic."

Okay. 

That doesn't mean it's good.

Many people seem to think realistic = good. It does not. Life Is Strange accurately showed how teenagers speak. It was realistic, and even though I enjoy the game, good lord the dialogue was awful. And it was because it was realistic.

I swear I'm going somewhere with this, bear with me.

Back to Joel. Defenders say, "Well anyone can die at any time, especially in the zombie apocalypse. It's realistic." That is correct, but the devs had to change Joel and the rules of their world in order to make it happen.

That's not good writing, my guys.

While the gritty nature of TLOU2 was realistic, there were too many contrivances and OOC (out-of-character) moments to make it a good, impactful death.

This has nothing to do with him dying unceremoniously and everything to do with how it happened.

Let's get the contrivance counter.

So Joel just happens to be on patrol (1) the day Abby happens to decide to go after him (2). A giant zombie horde happens to appear on that same day (3), and it's conveniently never explained why it's there or why it left later (4). Joel happens to be exactly where Abby was right in time to save her life (5). Joel decides to save her life even though old Joel would have left her as zombie bait (6). Abby's camp happens to be the only shelter nearby (7). Joel and Tommy, two people hardened by the apocalypse, happen to agree to going (8). When they get there, Tommy and Joel decide to give up their names despite how they would never do this (9). Joel walks into the middle of the room around a group of strangers despite how he would never do this even if he was "softened" by Jackson like some defenders say (10). Tommy has a perfect view of the entire room but happens to not see Abby take the shotgun from another WLF member (11). Abby shoots Joel without asking for a last name or any other form of confirmation that he's the one she's looking for; Joel is a common name and Jackson is a huge town by apocalypse standards. Even I know three Joels in my small area (12). Ellie, a hardened survivor, decides to casually stroll inside the room full of people even though she had a perfect, clear shot of Abby from where she was in the doorway and could have saved Joel (13). I won't even get into the WLF letting Ellie live.

Okay, let's see.

Oh.

13 contrivances.

13.

That's off the top of my head. There could be more I'm missing.

But yeah, it was totally a good death because it was realistic.

Even if you could explain half of these, that doesn't change how terrible it is. Even if some of them are nitpicks, like Abby not getting confirmation before shooting Joel, that doesn't change anything. There shouldn't even be 1.

Do you see why the death being realistic does not mean it was good? It relied on coincidences and off-screen "character development" for Joel and Tommy.

Oh, and by the way, the flashbacks contradict the "Jackson softened Joel" argument. He's literally the same person in the Jackson flashbacks. He's just as hard as ever. He's literally up Ellie's booty hole about patrol and is overly cautious.

AKA: he was not softened.

It's also interesting how his dialogue was something like "Why don't you say whatever speech you have prepared and get this over with." That sounds like old Joel. That's a great line, but his actions contradict the dialogue because the writers prioritized realism over narrative.

Long story short, do you see why realism isn't always good? If there are over a dozen contrivances like in TLOU2's case, then it's not good writing regardless of how realistic it is that "Anyone, even the protagonists, can die at any time in the zombie apocalypse." That's actually an interesting concept and one I like! 

But not if there are a gazillion contrivances.

I can write a twenty-page deep dive analysis about the narrative flaws of TLOU2, but let's end the realism rant here.

***

Now, how does this tie into dialogue and worldbuilding?

It's simple, really: dialogue doesn't have to be realistic to be good. You shouldn't have to change your dialogue or characters just to make it sound more "realistic," just like how the writers didn't need to change Joel's character to achieve a "realistic" result.

While realism is not inherently a bad thing, prioritizing realism over narrative isn't going to get you anywhere. The writers of TLOU2 prioritized realism over story, and it shows in how incredible the graphics are but how lackluster the narrative is.

If you prioritize realistic dialogue over dialogue that fits the narrative, you aren't going to have a happy audience.

Your dialogue doesn't need to be "This is hella cool."

Is that something a teenager would say? I have no idea, I'm not a teenager.

It sounds like something a younger teen would say, but that doesn't mean it's good dialogue. The same applies to my absolute favorite:

Overly formal dialogue.

Dialogue doesn't need to be overly formal. There's a reason most English majors (myself included) despise reading our textbooks: they're overly formal. The books we read are so hard to understand that I'm more likely to understand Italian than my English textbooks (I don't know a single Italian word even though I'm part Italian).

As I mentioned before, my second language is Korean. Korean has certain levels of formality, but some of the dialogue I've read from stories have been so formal it makes the Korean formal speech style look informal.

Even this book is written informally because I want to have a conversation, not a lecture.

Unless you're writing in a time period where the language is structured like that, or a specific character speaks like that, it isn't necessary to have the dialogue be overly formal.

Sometimes, having a character speak in an over-the-top and formal way is good characterization. In my book, Adrift, I had a character named Seulgi who never used contractions and spoke formally. It was for characterization. The others spoke informally (except for the captain, of course) and provided a contrast to her. Over time, as she developed and became a different person, she incorporated contractions into her speech and spoke more informally. She wasn't 100% informal all the time, but she had more natural conversations.

So I'm not saying don't use formal dialogue, I'm simply saying use it purposefully. Use it to represent a time period, situation where formality is needed, characterization for an overly formal character, etc.

There are times to use it, but be cautious. Remember it can be hard to read if it happens too often.

For example, people disliked the Star Wars prequels because everyone spoke in an overly formal way. The Jedi speaking that way was forgivable because they look like space monks, but everyone speaking that way became distracting and hard to follow.

I hope that makes sense.

As for worldbuilding, a realistic world isn't always the best one. Unless you're taking things way too far, you can stretch reality to fit your narrative.

For example, many people write cop dramas (including myself). The story doesn't have to follow the way cops live in order for it to be good. You can stretch the truth and sometimes even fabricate things and it's okay. As long as it's not too much, you're fine.

An example of too much would be, say, John Wick 4 and how many injuries he sustained. My guy jumped out a window and fell onto a van from several stories up and lived? Nah. He's a human last I checked.

Okay but I love John Wick so I casually ignored that!!!!!

But that's just an example. You can stretch reality without needing to break it. My parents say they go into John Wick movies thinking they're superhero movies because he survives things he absolutely shouldn't. I'm a John Wick defender until my last breath, but they have a point. He survives way too much and he should have died long ago.

That's what I mean by taking it too far. 

The same applies to the TLOU2 example I gave: there's only so much an audience can take before their suspension of disbelief gets shattered. All the contrivances I mentioned before are breaking the audience's immersion in the story.

There's so much that goes into dialogue and worldbuilding. More chapters will come soon about these topics, but I hope that was a decent intro even though I only covered three things. Let me know if you have any questions, but please make it related to what I said and not other topics. I will be covering more on dialogue and worldbuilding soon, so please wait to see those chapters before asking questions not related to the three core topics I talked about here!

~End~

Remember to follow for more tips like this. Vote and comment, leave requests for future topics if you'd like!