How To Write A Novel: A Rough Guide
III
Chapters and Dialogue
It's reasonable to ask what chapters are for. There are books that have no chapters - Terry Pratchett is a case in point - and they don't suffer because of it. They seem to be more of a convention than anything else but they do have some points in their favour. They allow readers to put a book aside without losing their place while giving them a discreet section - putting limits upon how much they need to read at any one time. For the writer they allow dramatic punctuations in the text - a means of holding the readers attention - and set limits on how much needs to be written at any point. The problem with them lies in deciding what belongs to one chapter and what belongs in another. They are there to punctuate the text but have to follow some sort of internal logic - separating one part of the action from another. This is not as easy as it sounds and I've lost count of the number of times had to revise chapters simply because the breaks in the text seem illogical. They should move the action forward, while, at the same time, putting the breaks on. Essentially they are there to tease the reader - urging him or her to read on.
Dialogue is, to put it bluntly, a bitch. It has to be relevant - conversations between characters must either move the action forward or reveal something about the characters. There is nothing worse than dialogue in a book that appears to serve no real purpose, but it's a device often used by bad authors to pad out the storyline. Where it is necessary the next problem is how to express it. I always imagine such conversations as a scene in a film in which the words must fit the character who's speaking. People rarely act out of character even when attempting to deceive.
Be careful of what I call “native-American-speak.” This occurs when characters are given an overly profound voice and end up sounding like native-Americans in B movie westerns. You know the sort of thing - “White man speak with forked tongue.” Such characters are easily recognisable in bad dialogue because they always sound like they are addressing a public meeting rather than holding a conversation. Interaction between people is usually more subtle than this. Imagine how you would speak to someone and how you'd expect them to respond. Dialogue is often presented as one person speaking and then patiently waiting for his turn to speak again as the other responds. This is done in the interests of clarity. In real life conversations are rarely like this as people interrupt each other or fail to finish sentences. This is difficult to convey in writing and would probably be counterproductive if overdone. However, I always make a point of introducing this into my dialogue to a limited extent. It makes conversations seem more realistic by reminding the reader - without labouring the point - as to how conversations actually sound in the real world.
Finally the word “said.” Writers will often cast around for an alternative. When a character asks a question it's reasonable to use the word “asked.” Likewise it's reasonable to use “replied” or “answered” when the other character responds. But replacing “said” with more descriptive alternatives can often sound forced. It can be useful, on occasion, to modify “said” with an additional descriptive device - “John said mildly,” “he said, nodding his head in agreement,” etc. Use them sparingly, however. It is quite possible to write dialogue without resorting to “saids” or identifying which character is speaking for short periods. But be careful - a whole page without identifying which character is speaking can confuse the reader.
