Writing Tips (#TuesdayTips)
-
TuesdayTips174
Three’s Not A Crowd.
The Power Of The Triumvirate.
A few weeks ago, my wife and I finally started binge-watching the classic 90s sitcom, Frasier (currently available on All4 – the Channel 4 streaming service). We’re half-way through season five and we are loving it!
One of the big strengths of the show is the writing. As with many US sitcoms of that era, it is the product of a writing room, with each 22 minute episode jam-packed with clever dialogue.
And it got me thinking.
Frasier is chock-full of examples of clever triumvirates. For those unfamiliar with the term, it is derived from Latin and originally referred to political systems centred on three individuals. In recent years its scope has been broadened somewhat to refer to any groups of three people working together. I am stretching the definition even further to encompass three characters interacting (for doubters, I’d like to point out that I haven’t invented this, it has been used this way by others).
For those unfamiliar with the premise of Frasier, the series centres primarily on five characters, with a host of supporting characters.
Dr Frasier Crane – the pompous psychiatrist first introduced in the sitcom Cheers. He has just moved back to his hometown of Seattle and now hosts a radio phone-in show.
Dr Niles Crane – Frasier’s younger brother is also a psychiatrist and is even more pompous.
The two brothers are close friends, but bicker regularly and are unabashed snobs.
Martin (Marty) Crane – Frasier and Niles’ father. A former Seattle police officer forced into early retirement by a bullet wound to his hip. Unlike his two sons, he is a straightforward, down-to-earth, stereotypical, American everyman. Despite his sons’ academic and professional success, he’d much rather the two brothers were keen on sports and drank beer, rather than expensive wines. At the beginning of the series, Marty is forced to move into Frasier’s luxurious apartment (along with his dog, Eddie), since he can’t look after himself.
Daphne Moon – she is Marty’s live-in healthcare provider and physiotherapist. Allegedly from England (the least said about Essex actress Jane Leaves’ Manchester accent the better), she is blissfully unaware of Niles’ infatuation with her.
Roz Doyle – Frasier’s radio producer. A voracious maneater, she has far more in common with Marty than the two brothers, but nevertheless becomes close friends with Frasier.
The series has multiple triumvirates, thus demonstrating that the concept is fluid. A character can be part of more than one triumvirate, sometimes switching groups within a scene.
Triumvirates lend themselves especially well to sitcoms. They allow three way conversations that can double-down on a punchline.
A good example is Frasier, Niles and Marty. A typical set up might be one of the brothers giving a feedline, to which the other replies with a punchline. In the context of Frasier, this might involve the two brothers snobbery becoming more and more outlandish, until Marty interjects and makes both of them appear foolish. Often he gets the biggest laugh. This set-up also works well with Daphne bringing the two brothers back down to Earth, rather than Marty.
Another set-up that works well is when two of the triumvirate are pitched against the third. Daphne and Marty showing Frasier to be a fool, after he has somehow got himself into a pickle is a common example.
A regular source of comic relief takes place between Frasier, Roz and Niles. Often taking place in the coffee shop they frequent, a typical setup involves Roz sharing her woes with Frasier (typically to do with her love life). Niles will then throw in a single snide remark about Roz’s promiscuity.
Triumvirates work because they often bring balance and outside perspective. And for this reason, they are equally effective in drama. Another great example from TV is the original Star Trek. Despite its ensemble cast, the centrepiece of the show typically centres around the triumvirate of Captain Kirk, First Officer Spock and Dr Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy.
Here, we see examples of two against one – Spock and McCoy trying to persuade Kirk to take a particular course of action. We also see many examples of McCoyand Spock giving Kirk conflicting advice, which he then has to weigh up to make his decision. And finally, we see Kirk acting as mediator as Spock and McCoy bicker and insult each other.
The fifth film in the franchise, The Final Frontier, is often criticised as one of the weakest entries. But if there is one aspect of the film that fans universally love, it is the triumvirate, especially in the first part of the film. Here we see Spock and McCoy aghast at Kirk’s reckless behaviour as he scales the mountain El Capitan without a safety harness. Later we see the three friends seated around a camp fire. Kirk and McCoy conspire against Spock by fooling him into thinking marshmallows are called ‘marshmelons’. Finally, we see them bonding over a rendition of row, row, row your boat.
In summary. Triumvirates are a powerful tool in a writers toolbox. They can allow a writer to balance out a scene, bring forth different aspects of a character’s personality, and also allow some exposition through the characters’ dialogue.
What good examples of triumvirates can you think of? Is there something special about three characters, rather than two or four? As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul.
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.
-
TuesdayTips173
Block Buster
Who Are You?
Today’s #TuesdayTip is another Block Buster – a short exercise to either bust your writer’s block, or just a fun writing challenge to practise your skills.
For many of us, our new year resolution is to write more. But, January is a funny old month. After the celebrations of the holiday season, followed by the rubbish weather in the northern hemisphere, then the endless stretch to payday, our creative juices can prove elusive.
But sometimes, all we need to get us back on track is a little kick-start. A catalyst to get things going.
Today’s activity is designed to do just that.
Make up the backstory of a person you see in the street.
Whether you are out and about doing chores, or perhaps having a well-earned coffee on the high street, the chances are that you’ve spotted some random strangers recently. People you know nothing about. A brief glance, with no meaningful interaction. A blank canvas, if you will.
So invent their story. The piece can be as long as you like. They might become a fully-fledged character in their own right, that finds themselves in a longer work, or just the subject of a couple of paragraphs speculating on who they are and what their story is.
If you need a little inspiration, here are a few prompts to get you going.- An older person – did they serve in the war? That elderly woman with a Zimmer frame, who looks like a cuddly great grandmother, might have spent the Second World War labouring under the Official Secrets Act to crack Nazi codes. Perhaps the elderly gentleman queuing in the Post Office did his National Service in a far-flung part of the world?
- That happy looking couple – what happens behind their closed front door?
- The two women chatting in a coffee shop. How do they know each other? Are they new acquaintances or did they meet at school and have all sorts of adventures before settling down?
- That business-looking type juggling a takeout coffee and a mobile phone as they scurry down the street. Where are they going? What is their job?
- The lone person at the bus stop scrolling on their phone – what do they do for a living? What’s the secret they only tell their loved ones?
Everyone has a story to tell.
Important caveat: As tempting as it is, DON’T TAKE THEIR PHOTOGRAPH. Not only is it creepy, having access to a perfect image to draw inspiration from will be counterproductive. If you just catch a glimpse of this person, then try to recreate them later, your memory will play tricks on you. Your imagination will be forced to fill in the gaps. No good for a police lineup, but perfect for a piece of creative writing.
Have fun!
Remember the rules:- Set yourself a time limit.
- Write without stopping, editing or overthinking.
- Write whatever comes to mind and don’t worry if it doesn’t make sense.
- It doesn’t matter if it has nothing to do with the scene that you are stuck on.
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.
All the best, Paul.
-
TuesdayTips172
TV Review:
The Met
This week’s #TuesdayTip is another TV Review. The Met, available on BBC iPlayer, was one of the stand-out fly-on-the-wall documentaries in recent years.
The show follows various teams from London’s Metropolitan Police Force. First of all, it is worth noting that although the voice over on the open credits mentions the unprecedented difficulties facing the Met, with an implicit mention of the murder of Sarah Everard by serving officer Wayne Couzens, it doesn’t feature this case. Nor is it a quick PR exercise churned out by the Met. This is the fourth season of the series and some of the cases featured pre-date the Everard tragedy by some years.
The range of crimes featured varies far more than many of these series, with not just murders being investigated. Some episodes follow two unrelated cases (linked perhaps by similar topics), whilst others focus on a single crime.
Included are investigations into the murder of a teenage boy, a missing persons case, the rape of a young woman and murder of a homeless man. A serial sexual predator is identified and prosecuted, and we see inside the elite covert Flying Squad as they try to catch a criminal gang. One of the more unusual cases involves the stabbing of a motorcycle stuntman filming a music video.
Throughout, the victims and their families are well-represented, and treated with dignity by the police. We see a combination of state-of-the-art policing, good old-fashioned detective work and forensics. As always, we see the compassion and professionalism of the vast majority of police officers and staff. There’s no doubt that they are as horrified and affronted by the actions of the devils in their midst, like Wayne Couzens, as the public are.
All-in-all, a well-produced, highly watchable series, with something for writers and casual viewers alike.
-
TuesdayTips171
Block Buster
Rhyme or Reason
Today’s #TuesdayTip is another Block Buster – a short exercise to either bust your writer’s block, or just a fun writing challenge to practise your skills.
There’s no avoiding the festive season, as it barrels its way towards us like a runaway freight train, so today’s exercise embraces the inevitable.
What is the story behind a Christmas carol or other festive tune? What made Good King Wenceslas look out his window? What is that poor little donkey thinking as he hauls a heavily pregnant woman from inn to inn? What were the shepherds chatting about as they watched their flocks by night (were they actually washing their socks?). What about songs from other festive traditions?
Remember the rules:- Set yourself a time limit.
- Write without stopping, editing or overthinking.
- Write whatever comes to mind and don’t worry if it doesn’t make sense.
- It doesn’t matter if it has nothing to do with the scene that you are stuck on.
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.
As it is the festive season, and those mince pies aren’t going to eat themselves, the TuesdayTip will be taking a short break.
However you choose to celebrate (or avoid!) the festive season, I wish you all the best, and look forward to seeing you in the new year.
Paul
-
TuesdayTips170
A Kick Up The Adverbial.
Using Adverbs To Describe Dialogue.
Hello and welcome to this week’s #TuesdayTip!
Today I am going to be looking at an essential piece of grammar the adverb.
If, like me, you went to school in England in the eighties, you were probably never taught grammar properly. That includes the meaning of words such as ‘adverb‘. The good news, is that you will have been using, reading and writing them all of your life, you just had no idea that was what they were called!
In a nutshell, adverbs are words that modify and add context to a verb (a ‘doing word’). For example ‘she said happily.‘ ‘He ran slowly.‘
In these examples, the verbs (doing word) are ‘said’ and ‘ran’. The adverbs are the modifiers, underlined (happily and slowly).
As I have been looking at dialogue in previous TuesdayTips [Tip166 and Tip167], I am going to continue with that and focus on adverbs and dialogue tags.
As a rule of thumb, you should try and minimise their usage. Ideally the words chosen and the surrounding prose should tell the reader how the person is feeling, or their tone of voice.
It is drummed into writers that we should ‘show not tell’. This also applies to dialogue. By carefully choosing words and phrases, we can avoid the need to explicitly tell our readers how our characters are feeling. By constantly having to signpost our character’s feelings with adverbs, the text can become clunky and lose its flow.
But don’t ditch them entirely. Sometimes they are essential. For example:
“You went out drinking without saying anything,” she said angrily. “Did you think I wouldn’t find out?“
In this example, you need to reinforce that the speaker is angry, because the language is actually quite ambiguous. I can easily change the tone of the statement by changing the adverb.
“You went out drinking without saying anything. Did you think I wouldn’t find out?” she said teasingly.
Other times, you can lose the adverb by using a different dialogue tag.
“You went out drinking without saying anything,” she shouted. “Did you think I wouldn’t find out?“
Or
“You went out drinking without saying anything. Did you think I wouldn’t find out?” she teased.
A bonus here, is that you have also shortened the sentence by one word. Not much, but sometimes every little helps!
Sometimes, you can even cut the dialogue tag and the adverb entirely.
The following says the same thing, but its meaning is so clear that you don’t need to tell the reader what the character is feeling. Place it in context, and you can easily leave the reader in no doubt that this is being said at high volume, without ever needing to tell the reader this.
“So, you just decided to go out on the piss? Seriously, did you really think I wouldn’t notice?“
Ultimately, the decision whether or not to use adverbs is a personal one. However, I generally think that their overuse should be avoided. Ask yourself if you really need one or if there is an alternate way to write the sentence? On the other hand, they exist for a reason. Sometimes readers need additional help, especially if they speak English as an additional language or are not neurotypical, and require extra clues to judge a character’s mood.
What do you think of adverbs? Are there times when they are necessary? What about different audiences?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul.
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.
-
TuesdayTips169
I Sentence You …
Sentencing Guidelines.
For today’s #TuesdayTip, I want to look at the topic of sentencing.
Caveat: I am NOT a legal expert, so bear that in mind when reading the following.
For the vast majority of crime novels, the culprit is caught and convicted, and sent to jail. In the UK, if they committed murder, they will have received a mandatory life sentence. Generally speaking, that’s about as much detail as the writer will include.
But sometimes you want more. Perhaps you’d like to state how long your antagonist will go to jail for? Perhaps they previously served time in jail and had been released – in which case what were they in for, and how long did they serve? Were they released on licence or is their original sentence spent? A mandatory life sentence comes with a minimum tariff to be served before they can be considered for parole. How is that decided?
Needless to say, determining a sentence is a complex and controversial process. Most writers have limited legal expertise, but want their stories to ring true. So how can you find out what is an appropriate sentence for your character?
The Basics:- All jurisdictions have their own rules and often their own terminology.
In the UK, England & Wales follow the same guidelines, whilst Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems. So first of all, ensure that you understand the requirements of your jurisdiction (Scotland differs from England & Wales for example by having a fifteen person jury, rather than twelve, and the prosecutor is the Procurator Fiscal, rather than the Crown Prosecution Service).
- If you are writing a book set in the US, the law is a patchwork quilt of Federal (country-wide), State and even county. You will need to figure out whose jurisdiction your offender falls under (a combination of location and type of offence).
The law and sentencing guidelines change and evolve – make sure you consider the time in which your story is set.
For the purposes of this article, I am going to stick with what I know best, modern-day England & Wales.- First, check if your crime would be dealt with by a Magistrate Court or a Crown Court.
- As a rule of thumb, Magistrates deal with offences that would ordinarily be dealt with by fines, community service or short custodial sentences. There is no jury. They will also determine if the accused should be committed for a jury trial in the Crown Court. This link to the Sentencing Council lists the sort of offences that a magistrate may deal with.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/
- Some charges carry potential sentences that are outside the remit of the magistrates court and so should be committed to a jury trial in a crown court. Other offences can be triable either way – in other words the magistrate can either deal with it or send to the crown court. This link to the Sentencing Council lists the sort of offences that a crown court may deal with.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/crown-court/
Notice that the list of offences is very similar, reflecting how many crimes are triable either way, depending on the circumstances and severity. However, there are some obvious differences: Attempted murder is only dealt with by the crown court, for example.
OK, so what now?
As a writer, you probably want a sentence that is broadly plausible and ideally fits the needs of your story (somebody convicted of murder isn’t going to be back on the street in six years unless their conviction is quashed. You need to either change the timelines in your story, or consider having them convicted of manslaughter or wounding with intent).
You basically have three options:
1) contact a solicitor or relevant legal professional and ask them how long they think your character would get (or work backwards – I want my character to go to prison for this long, what aggravating or mitigating circumstances would mean that length of sentence is plausible?). There are some Facebook groups where there may be experts willing to advise writers – just remember to specify where and when it is set and also read the answers carefully. Despite clearly stating your book is set in the UK, a lot of Americans will still chip in and recommend the death penalty, then start waffling on about plea deals and other such nonsense.
2) Search the internet for similar cases (check the dates, in case the law has changed since the real-life offence was committed) and see what sort of sentence was handed down. Assuming that there are no unusual aggravating or mitigating circumstances, you can probably just have your fictional character receive a similar sentence.
3) Look up the range of sentencing options on the Sentencing Council Website.
Despite what the tabloids would have you believe, judges actually follow a strict set of guidelines. Obviously, it requires an experienced judge to evaluate each case on its individual merits, but it will give a set of principles for them to follow.
Basically, each crime would have a ‘starting point‘.- From there the judge must consider aggravating factors (things that increase the severity of the crime and thus the sentence) and mitigating circumstances (things that may decrease the severity of the crime and therefore the sentence). You sometimes hear about defence teams giving pleas in mitigation, which is their professional duty (however they or society may feel about the person and/or crime).
- Offenders are also given credit for a guilty plea, on a sliding scale, with a hefty reduction for admitting it at the first opportunity, to a lesser reduction for pleading guilty at the last moment (perhaps after the trial has already started).
- Time spent remanded in custody awaiting their trial (time spent) should also be considered.
- Should multiple sentences be served concurrently (at the same time) or consecutively (one after another)? This is another complex subject, but the principles are here https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/overarching-guides/crown-court/item/totality/
What about release?
First of all, prisoners must serve their whole sentence. However, they don’t have to spend it all in prison. Typically, unless the judge has specified a minimum tariff (as in a life sentence), the prisoner is eligible for release halfway through. Then they will be released on licence to serve the remainder of the sentence in the community. The licence comes with rules, and if they breach those rules they will be recalled to prison, to potentially serve the remainder of their original sentence behind bars.
Life Sentences – an exception to the above.
Life sentences are mandatory for those convicted of murder, and can be given in some other extremely serious situations, such as rape or terrorism offences, if the judge feels it is justified.
Life sentences are slightly different to other offences. In these cases, the sentence lasts for the rest of the prisoner’s life. However, unlike other offences, where the prisoner is automatically released at the half-way point, the judge will set a minimum tariff that must be served behind bars before the prisoner can be considered for release by the parole board. If they are successful (and many aren’t on their first attempt) they will be released under strict licencing conditions, which they have to follow for the rest of their life. They can be recalled to prison to serve more time if they breach those conditions. The sentencing act 2020 lays out the guidelines in legislation here:
In exceptional circumstances, a judge can specify a whole-life tariff, where the prisoner will never be released. There are only 60 or so prisoners currently serving those sentences. You can probably guess which scumbags they are.
What are your thoughts on accuracy regarding sentencing in fiction? Do you know of any clearer websites that break down the guidelines further?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time, all the best, Paul.
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.
-
TuesdayTips168
Block Buster
Ideas To Thwart Writer’s Block
What 3 Words
Today’s #TuesdayTip is a great way to generate word prompts for a creative writing piece.
What3Words.com is a revolutionary way of pinpointing a precise location anywhere on the earth’s surface. Rather than trying to rely on the vagaries of describing a place using street names and postcodes (which are subject to change and in some apps, simply wrong!) the makers of the service have divided the planet into 3 metre x 3 metre squares and assigned each a permanent, unique ‘address’ consisting of three random words.
The beauty of the system is that it allows the precise identification of a location, such as a doorway or entrance, or even the middle of a field!
Emergency services all over the world have adopted it, since you can easily pinpoint the precise position of a casualty, rather than relying on the caller describing their location. It works using GPS (which all smart phones have) and once you’ve installed the app, no further data connection is required – so as long as you are in a reasonably clear location and your phone can get a GPS satellite signal, it will tell you the unique combination of three words that identify your location.
You can also use their website to find a place and retrieve its 3 words. This is what I suggest you do today. For safety reasons, if you are going to make your story publicly available DO NOT USE YOUR HOME ADDRESS! Instead, why not find the 3 Words associated with your favourite landmark?
For example, one of the locations overlapping The Louvre Museum in Paris is ///seasons.sharper.scan
So there are my three word prompts. Now can I incorporate all three words into a short written piece?
Remember the rules:- Set yourself a time limit.
- Write without stopping, editing or overthinking.
- Write whatever comes to mind and don’t worry if it doesn’t make sense.
- It doesn’t matter if it has nothing to do with the scene that you are stuck on.
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.
Until next time,
Paul
-
TuesdayTips167
Attributing More.
Revisiting Dialogue Tags.
Today’s #TuesdayTip is a continuation of last week’s post [#Tip166] about Dialogue Attribution, the words outside the speech marks that tell the reader who is speaking and how they are saying it.
As mentioned previously, dialogue attribution should be unobtrusive. For example the word ‘said’ is largely invisible to readers.
One of the biggest issues is knowing who is speaking – this is relatively straight forward if there are only two people. You can ditch attribution and just alternate between them, with a line-break each time.
But for lengthy exchanges, there needs to be a periodic reminder of who is talking, in case the reader loses track.
And remember to attribute if there is an intervening section of prose – who starts speaking first after an interlude?
(There are a couple of well-known authors who can be guilty of skipping the tags entirely in fast-paced exchanges. The characters alternate speaking like a volley in a tennis match. Unfortunately, if there are no distinguishing verbal traits to differentiate the characters, I have sometime found myself stopping and having to go back and mentally assign each line of dialogue to the relevant character, which ruins the flow of the scene).
It is essential to proof read the dialogue. Come back to it after a few weeks, or use beta readers and see if they lose track.
Methods for using attribution.
You can avoid stating that a person has started speaking by tagging dialogue to a character’s action. This is called a ‘beat’.
Warren looked over his shoulder. “Are you coming, or what?”
Keep the dialogue and beat in the same line with no line-break, and the reader will automatically realise who the dialogue belongs to. Again, some writers can be guilty of adding line-breaks to separate the action from the words (a good device to add tension or adjust pacing), but without a tag to tell the reader that the same person is speaking, the reader will assume it is someone else.
Another way to signpost who is speaking without tags is distinctive language for each character. Unfortunately, this isn’t always possible. Two cops, who come from entirely different parts of the country with different dialects, might nevertheless use the same language when discussing a case. Unfortunately, there are few easy ways to render their accent and dialogue on the page, unlike in an audio production where it is obvious to the reader when the narrator has switched to Scouse, rather than Irish.
Don’t say my name!
In real-life, we use each other’s names sparingly. Especially if there are only two people present. I can chat to my wife all night without either of us using the other’s name. Even in small groups, body language etc can mean that there is no need to address someone by their name; it’s obvious who we are speaking to. In the UK especially, we are famous for being introduced to someone, then weeks later, realising that we can’t remember their name, since we haven’t used it since. There are people I’ve known for years that I chat to whenever I meet them, but couldn’t tell you their name if you asked! Our American cousins are typically better than Brits, in part because they subconsciously use a person’s name repeatedly after meeting them for the first time, imprinting it in their memory. In the UK, ‘Hello, mate, how are you doing?’ would be a typical greeting! After a while, you’ve known a person so long it would be embarrassing to ask them their name again.
You can avoid using a name, by using pronouns for a couple eg he said/she said. Modern usage controversially means ‘they’ is now a non-gendered pronoun, not just a plural (fun fact, this usage actually goes back centuries, so pay no heed to ‘purists’ who criticise it – they are wrong). Other languages, such as German have a neutral pronoun built in.
You can also use descriptors, eg ‘the young man said’. But be sparing, and only use them for a bit of variety.
These are just a few examples of dialogue attribution and there is much else to be said on the subject. What are your thoughts on dialogue attribution? As always feel free to comment here or on social media. I may return to this subject in future.
Until next time,
Paul
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.
-
TuesdayTips166
Who Dat?
Dialogue Attribution.
A couple of years ago, I posted a series of articles about writing convincing dialogue [#Tips 89,90,91]. In a very belated follow-up, today’s blog is about dialogue attribution – in other words, marking who said what. The bit of conversation outside the speech marks.
The process of attributing dialogue is something that rarely gets the attention it deserves. Writers are often praised for their skilful use of speech. A good scribe can paint a picture of a character with just a few spoken words. They can demonstrate their emotions without needing to actually tell you how they are feeling.
Most importantly, the reader should never lose track of which character is actually doing the speaking.
But none of that is possible without support from outside the speech marks.
Yet this is rarely mentioned, in part, because if it is done properly, it is essentially invisible to the reader. That lack of visibility is something that is key to this whole topic.
All You Need Is He Said/She Said.
It has been claimed by some that these two tags are all a good writer needs. If there are more than two characters, or they are both the same gender, then ‘Bob said’, ‘Alice said’ and ‘Charlie said’ should suffice.
This seems somewhat restrictive – and probably flies in the face of what you learned in school. There, we are taught to avoid repetition at all costs, and to expand our written vocabulary using synonyms. We are also encouraged to modify our tags to highlight what the character is feeling.- “Go away,” he said.
- “Go away,” he said angrily.
- “Go away,” he said wearily.
- “Go away,” he shouted.
- “Go away,” he shouted angrily.
- “Go away,” he whispered.
- “Go away,” he whispered urgently.
These examples above show the same two words uttered in seven different ways, with the character’s delivery of them determined by the words surrounding them.
Taken out of context, the first example is impossible to render. The voice you hear in your head when reading it probably says more about what you are feeling than the character is feeling.
But that’s the point, it’s taken out of context. In a book, that dialogue would be nestled within the story. Hopefully there is enough information surrounding it that you can infer the emotion based on what else is, or has, taken place.
So why this advice?
First of all, I think it is too absolutist. There’s no question that writing that is stuffed with synonyms for ‘said’ can feel amateurish. Read the dialogue below and see how it feels.
“I don’t believe him,” said Warren.
“Me neither,” agreed Sutton.
“Oh, come on!” Hutchinson shouted, exasperated.
“No, I think you are right,” interjected Hardwick.
“I don’t trust him either,” Ruskin piped up.
“He’s done this before,” Grayson added.
“Fine, I’ll prove it,” Hutchinson huffed. “I’ll bring in the photo of Elvis holding me as a baby in Vegas.”
“Will it be as convincing as that John Lennon look-a-like your Dad told you you’d met as a kid?” asked Sutton.
“That wasn’t my fault,” grumbled Hutchinson, embarrassed. “Dad always liked a joke.”
“The date on the photo was June 1981; he died in December 1980!” Warren laughed.
“Well this photo was taken in 1975,” Hutchinson insisted triumphantly. “When he was at the height of his powers.”
The above exchange is frankly exhausting to read (and even more so to write). The word ‘said’ is used only once, with a further 10 synonyms.
In my opinion (and it is my opinion, others may disagree), writers should strive to minimise synonyms for said, but not to exclude them entirely. Their periodic use lends variety to a piece of prose.
I see nothing wrong with the occasional use of ‘he asked’ when a character has asked a question – however, the presence of a question mark should tell us that it us a query, making it slightly redundant.
Stop shouting at me!
Like many writers, I shun the use of exclamation marks where possible (see #Tip115). If you need them to tell the reader that something is dramatic, you probably haven’t written it dramatically enough. However, they can have their uses in dialogue. They can be used instead of telling the reader a character is shouting.
For example.
“Warren, come here,” Susan shouted.
I think this looks more impactful with an exclamation mark.
“Warren, come here!” shouted Susan.
If the reader already knows who is doing the shouting, then you may be able to eliminate the dialogue tag entirely.
Susan shone her torch into the darkened room. “Warren!”
Dialogue attribution is an essential tool in any writer’s arsenal. For that reason, I am going to continue this theme in a later tip.
What are your thoughts on dialogue attribution? Can you think of any good examples of it done well?Until next time.
PaulIf you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.
-
TuesdayTips165
I See You.
Character Visibility.
Welcome to this week’s #TuesdayTip. Today, I want to look at character visibility.
Specifically, whether a character is front and centre or ‘hidden’ in the background.
In crime novels, there is usually a culprit of some description. There are also red herrings. Fans of crime fiction are often very careful readers. They are looking for clues as to who the antagonist is. I’ve discussed previously the placement of red herrings [Tip153] but sometimes you want to mislead your readers even more. You want readers to work for the pay off. One way to do this is to keep them guessing about whether the guilty party is front and centre throughout the story (hiding in plain sight) or perhaps is a smaller character, maybe one that seems to be little more than a supporting actor.
Although there are very few hard and fast rules about writing crime fiction, one thing you have to do is introduce the culprit early on – don’t cheat and bring them in two chapters from the end.
So, do you have them as a key part of the narrative, or do you slip them in barely noticed?
The same goes for red herrings. Do you make them an obvious suspect and spend most of the book making the readers guess ‘are they or aren’t they’, only to fall at the final hurdle? Or do you slip them in discreetly early on, but have them just noticeable enough that the reader starts to feel clever because they think they’ve spotted someone you are trying to hide?
Some of the best books I’ve ever read skilfully combine both approaches. A character who is so obvious that I am almost dismissing them, because surely the writer is trying to mislead me? Alongside an apparently minor character who I start to feel suspicious about, solely because I think ‘well they must be there for a reason …’.
Another approach is to have more than one culprit. The obvious suspect turns out to be the evildoer, but they are dismissed at one point because they couldn’t have done it (eg they had an alibi) or their motive collapses. You then reveal that they did do it, but for a different reason and enlisted the help of someone else, either to give them a false alibi or to carry out the deed on their behalf. Lovers of True Crime see this all the time. The woman whose husband is killed whilst she is twenty miles away in a crowded bar, turns out to have been murdered by her lover so that they can live happily ever, after is a typical example.
Just one final thought. I have focused here on the culprit, but what about the unexpected hero? This has to be done with care, to avoid stereotypes and ‘saviour tropes’ (eg the damsel in distress is rescued by the big, handsome man). However, when done well, it can work brilliantly . For example our protagonist luckily avoids danger or has unexpected clues fall into their lap, and it is eventually revealed that they had an unknown helper all along. Especially if the helper is the person you’d least expect to be on their side.
What do you think about character visibility? Do you like the culprit to be hidden in plain sight or a part of the background? As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul.
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.
