THE DIALOG AND WHETHER IT WAS NATURAL AND REALISTIC

You're not alone if you find it difficult to write dialogue. Dialogue, which is a major component of characterization, has the power to make the reader love or despise your characters. Unbroken dialogue might be perplexing, but overuse of dialogue tags can make your writing appear unnatural. Moreover, speech and writing typically differ from one another. Are speech tics or slang appropriate to include? Does dialogue follow the same principles about avoiding adverbs and passive voice? There are few strict guidelines when it comes to conversation writing, yet the stakes are great. However, there are ways to ensure that your writing is exceptional.

The only rule that is always true when it comes to dialogue is punctuation. There are a ton of resources online for complex punctuation, and sometimes the rules change depending on the context or style guide you're using. But in general, the rules are as follows: 

• punctuation goes inside quotation marks. "Punctuate dialogue like this," she said.
• "Dialogue tags are always preceded by a comma and lower-cased." "But what about dialogue actions?" he asked, scratching his head. "Actions are their own sentence and should be started with a capital letter." She nodded emphasized. "And don't forget, every speaker gets a new paragraph.” "Oh, right!” He now understood the fundamentals of dialogue.

There are, of course, exceptions, like em dashes or question marks that are part of the sentence but not part of the dialogue, but the majority of your dialogue will look like that. It may not seem important to learn, but you never want a reader to pass on your brilliant content because you never took the time to learn the proper grammar. Now, to the hard part.

Should I use dialogue tags other than said?

The internet is very emphatic that said is dead. You can find list after list of synonyms to use instead of said, but if you pay any attention to them, your writing will be the worse for it. Said isn’t dead. Said simply cues a reader into who’s talking. The word isn’t actually read in any kind of comprehensible way, it’s simply recognized, catalogued, and then ignored.

The reader must pause to understand phrases like "declared," "argued," "answered," or "ejaculated," which slows down your writing pace and breaks the flow of your sentences. It's acceptable to plan to do it occasionally. When utilized in moderation, these tags can strengthen your work. Your writing will be clumsy and lazy when used regularly. 

Indeed, lethargic. Because conveying a scene with dialogue tags rather than through voice or actions is a surefire way to tell rather than to demonstrate. Without doing the task of truly giving the dialogue depth and passion, it is depriving the reader of their imagination and forcing their interpretation of how the words are meant to be understood. Individuals are complex, therefore simplifying your characters to.

Um and like are used frequently. Isn't that what makes it realistic? 

No. No, it doesn't. When someone says they want speech that sounds realistic, what they really mean is that they want it to sound like something that a genuine person would say. They don't plan to include every filler word, grammatical error, rambling sentence, and self-interrupting phrase that could occur in an actual conversation.

Writing dialogue involves shaping it rather than simply transcribing it. You don't picture yourself speaking to someone with three grammatical errors, six pauses interspersed with "um," and four run-on, backtracking phrases when you picture it in your mind. You visualize yourself having an effective conversation. You express exactly what you mean to say in your head, pausing just the right amount and emphasizing things in an effortless way. Though it rarely sounds like way, most people understand what you're trying to communicate once they get passed your actual words. Recall your most recent chat. How many times did the person say "like" or "pause" in a phrase before finishing it? Could you identify the grammatical errors they used to illustrate their points? The response is probably no.

Ultimately, your written dialogue is being read; it's not a real conversation, it's true conversation; it's what a real conversation would be in an ideal world. If you were to pay attention to every speech tic and filler word in everyday conversation, you would go insane. Using every grammatical quirk and filler word that a natural conversation would have will make your dialogue tiresome to read, and most readers will put your work down before they've even deciphered what the characters are attempting to say.

The goal of dialogue is not to be as realistic as possible, but to create characters who are as real as possible; most writing rules don't apply to dialogue because people don't think about that kind of thing when they talk, right? The exception to this is when you want to convey emotion or characterization in dialogue. Someone who is nervous will have more noticeable ums and wells. Someone who is unsure will noticeably start and stop sentences without finishing them. Different dictions involve different grammar mistakes, and that can serve as characterization.

Both yes and no. The "rules" of writing exist to help you write in a way that is not uncomfortable to read, not to restrict your style. When you read something terrible, you might not be able to identify why it was bad because the passive voice was used constantly and the prose was monotonous and uninteresting or because there were too many adverbs used to create a telling rather than showing style. However, you'll discover that reading it isn't enjoyable. 

The purpose of writing rules is to prevent you from making readers wince and stop reading. 

In light of this, the majority of individuals don't consider avoiding adverbs when speaking. However, using too many adverbs in your speech would have the same impact on a reader that an overabundance of adverbs anywhere else would have. Dialogue or not, your words are being read and bad writing is bad writing.

However, intentionally creating a character who defies convention might make for compelling characterization. A reader may get the impression that a character is arrogant or lacking in creativity if they are used in every other phrase. However, breaking the norms because "people don't talk like that" will render your writing unintelligible. Intentionality is always the aim of writing. 

How will it ever sound like a realistic character if I'm not supposed to create real dialogue?

Characters that are referred to as "real" don't sound that way because of the manner their words are delivered. They feel like someone you may run into, which makes them real. They are not without faults and redeeming qualities. They occasionally twist the truth and say things they don't mean to. They quarrel and they avoid conflict. They make jokes, some of which inevitably fall flat or offend someone. They say real, authentic, human things.

Since our minds are continually making sense of the world, most of the time what we hear in discussions isn't the words being uttered, but rather what is being said. We hear original word choices, thought-provoking concepts, humorous anecdotes, and surprising responses. People's intentions are audible to us, and when their words contradict that intention, we can tell. flawless truth, not flawless accuracy, is what readers desire. 

One of the most difficult, yet crucial, aspects of writing is crafting effective conversation. A strong narrative can be destroyed by bad dialogue, while well-written dialogue can help your characters come to life. Thus, pay attention to discussions and jot down noteworthy details. Take note of the many ways that people phrase things and react to circumstances. Above all, however, pay attention on writing real characters. Real dialogue will follow.