So, dialogue has a time and place, much like persons wanting to experiment (it's known as college), but in dueling, RPing or even writing in general, we know when dialogue shouldn't be happening: when you're driving a fist down another persons gullet with intent to find their reproductive organs through their intestines. This of course means that when you're fighting, you shouldn't be talking, and if you're talking while fighting, you're doing it wrong. You're a fighter, not a talker. The grand warrior. Warriors do not bandy speeches about. They aren't masters of rhetoric. Look at a barbarian -- the most he's gonna managed is a grunt, and that's while driving the club through your skull to bisect with your spine.
Conversation should always feel natural. Before or even after a fight, it should feel natural. Forcing it makes it awkward. If one is talking during a fight, that suggests you aren't fighting anymore. The engagement of wills through force has stopped and moved on to an engagement of wills through intellect. Conversation must flow from a desire for the two persons to talk in the first place. If there is great enmity between these persons, why would they talk? If they know they're here to d-d-d-d-d-duel, why mouth off in the first place? We're not talking about badly dubbed martial arts movies where their mouths are moving but no sound is coming out. A real fight is fast, over quickly, and has the minimum of vocal content.
Now, this moves into another thing about dialogue: there has to be a reasonable amount of reaction to what's being said. Characters, much like people, will react to what is said by the protagonist in varying ways. The response to something as silly as "Wassup!" will differ depending on who is being asked. Some could reply in kind, others with something else, while others still will be offended. Remember this when crafting conversation in the first place. Like in physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is how conversation should play out. That what is said will provoke a response, either by continuing the conversation, causing an expression or particular look, or an action in reaction to what was said.
This now moves us onto the third part of dialogue, and that is understanding appropriate dialogue. This is a bit more difficult, in that it requires of the writer a certain level of maturity, in that it's expected for them to understand people. Real people. It doesn't have to be a lot, but some. In understanding people, you understand how they react to varying instances of conversation as well as expressions or looks. How your mother replies to you when you say something. How a friend waits or interrupts you while you're speaking. Understanding these things can help you craft convincing conversation. What moment would be appropriate for someone to say something, or interrupt? When does someone show emotion? Answering this questions can help one create better conversation between characters.
And finally, this roles right back into the start: would it make sense for two people in a blood feud to start off by introducing themselves by name before jumping out with machetes before jumping back to continue to talk? Writing mimics life, and like life, there needs to be a level of logical conclusion to things, an understanding of agency (that is the power to act and do things). This means that when it is in your power to act, why would you talk? So, if you as a person wouldn't talk a long monologue about pants under a blood moon in May, why would a character do the same?
Mind you, time and place for everything. Writing seriously, this all makes sense. Writing camp, you do the opposite. But dueling, role playing (and most writing) is a serious endeavor, so why wouldn't it be a serious reflection of the lives we live?
No comments:
Post a Comment