I often read emerging writers (but I found the same feature in many established authors, I think for example of Simenon books that regurgitate the dialogues or certain Marquez's novels, to name a few), to find the front pages and pages full of jokes, phrases in which, after a while ', you lose sight of the "who says what."
While the dialogue make the characters more "alive" do not forget, however, that his manic is suffocating. Everyone will happen to bump into so-called "buttonholer" means a person that is able to nail me for hours with a detailed account of the facts are absolutely safe. To avoid being
you buttonholer of the turn, when you write the dialogue, get to the place of your reader. There he was, you see? He sat in an armchair, armed best intentions of this world (he wants to finish reading the chapter before dinner), here is there another, clinging to the bracket in a crowded bus, with the elbow near the side and placed in curly hair of a fat that's tickling my nose.
How do you think will last the attention of these poor, while reading a dialogue that goes on for several pages? Three minutes maximum, after which the chair will stand in for something they invented to go into the kitchen and the guy on the bus, who has since lost in a desperate attempt to understand "who says what," decides to get off at the next stop and snebbiarsi take two steps for the mind, flooded by such dialogues type:
- situation: two friends, sitting at a table in a bar, talking to an acquaintance who was suffering from depression, who attempted to kill her husband. The first woman is a blond, forty year old special education teacher in an elementary school. It's called Vanda and behind a failed marriage. The other is Carla, thirty-five, a freelance journalist who deals with crime for a local newspaper.
-I did not think he would, it was not the type.
-How can you say? The human mind is a mystery.
-Yeah, but some things feel to the skin ... I spoke with her several times and has always given me the impression of being a balanced person-
... But please, do not make me laugh. If that is balanced, I'm Wonder Woman ...
-no joke, this is serious. You know me better than that, for certain things, intuition is better than a radar-
... Do not tell me you believe this crap! If I had entrusted to the intuition, you know how many corners I got ...
-Yeah, but you do not get to kill a man like this, there must have been by force of the warning signs.
-signs? Premonitions? But, stop ... I seem to talk to my mother. She is one who believes the hereafter, the bad luck, cats and blacks ...
sixth sense the sixth sense-What does it matter? This is about a murder in cold blood.
-Says who? No cold-blooded murder takes place, the author of the crime, however, is a human being so ... You're
-justifying this woman?
-not what I said. If you let me talk, you explain that the emotional component is always present in all our actions ...
The dialogue can go on forever, and if it is true that at times you can guess who is speaking (eg psychologist when referring to the emotional component and superstitions) for the remainder of the reader groping in the dark, lost in a maze in which there is no way out.
If your intent, then, is to deter, so go ahead, filling folders and folders of dialogue, but if, as I suppose, your efforts are to achieve the objective that must always be "to involve and captivate" the reader, then keep in mind the rule of "taste" of recipes. Enough! Do not exaggerate, the right measure in all things is the criteria that you must never give up.
0 comments:
Post a Comment