Secrets of Writing: Dialog Part 3: Exposition
This is the term used for dialog that reveals information to the audience. In bad fiction, this is usually the worst kind of dialog. That’s because it’s the hardest dialog to write convincingly. Unfortunately, it’s almost impossible to write a story without expositional dialog. So let’s try to understand how to make it work.
As we’ve discussed earlier, dialog is not real conversation, but it must seem real. The primary goal of dialog is to create drama, the secondary goal is to impart information. It’s important to keep these priorities straight. Too many writers try to cram tons on information into a word balloon without first considering whether it would be something a person would say. Or even more importantly, what this dialog does for the story dramatically.
You probably remember some teacher back in school who was a complete bore when he gave lectures. Information cannot be merely told to someone. It needs to be imparted in a dynamic, interesting manner. It’s extremely easy to bore someone if you’re not careful.
Public speaking classes teach you to make your points in short, sharp sentences with sufficient breaks between them so the audience can absorb what they heard. The same rule applies to writing. You have to convert your exposition into ammunition. The dialog has to sing with emotional meaning. It can’t just be raw data. It needs to have an impact on the character who’s receiving it.
If the dialog has no value in the scene, it will have no value to the reader. So it’s a bad idea to waste their time with meaning less chatter. Each line of dialog should further the story, define the characters, create emotion, add humor, or provide information. If it fails to do any of these things, consider dumping it.
So, when writing expositional scenes, you want to avoid table dusting. You want to make the passing of information to the audience seem as natural as a blue sky. To do this you have to carefully choose who says what to whom. The person receiving the information should not be aware of it, unless they are playing the fool for some reason. The person giving the information should only tell the other character the bare minimum of what they should know. As we discussed before, it’s boring to hear too much too soon. Tell us only what we need to know. Show us the rest whenever possible.
It’s much better for the story if the information passed on has some kind of emotional impact on the other character. Either it makes them laugh, cry, scared, or angry. If it’s boring to the receiver, don’t expect the audience to be too interested either.
When you create emotional meaning out of the dialog, you add to the energy of the scene and you advance the story.
Let’s explore some examples of expositional dialog to see how we can approach it differently.
Art Insert: A man and woman talking in what looks like a business meeting in an office.
MAN: I remember Kyle telling me about Lancaster. He said Lanc had some business dealings with Arabs.
WOMAN: I happen to know he has connections to several high ranking members of the Saudi Royal Family.
MAN: Then...you think this is about the sword?
WOMAN: Definitely.
In the above example, the two characters are talking about someone they both know. Notice the man has incomplete data and the woman seems to know more. She tells him what he needs to know in an indirect way. This is realistic behavior and it doesn’t seem forced.
In the next example we look at a case where someone’s boss is providing info to an employee. This is basically a lecture, but watch how it’s done…
IMAGINE: A mob boss is talking to a soldier. They’re in a warehouse full of crates. Hiding behind one of the crates, listening in, is Kyle.
BOSS: Okay, Vance...the shipment comes in at three A.M. sharp. I don’t expect any trouble. We greased the right wheels. But just to make sure, I want you and Carlos to keep and eye out, capiche?
VANCE: What about Kyle?
BOSS: Don’t worry about that milk sucking freak. I’ve taken care of him.
From this discussion, information is passed, but we only get the information absolutely necessary. And there are implied elements in the dialog that suggests Kyle is a threat, that this shipment is illegal or something others will want in on. All of this is done with subtext. You only say what you need to say, and try to be indirect about it so the reader has something to imagine. When you spark the audience’s imagination, you give them something to anticipate. You provide an element of mystery.
In the following example, we find out about a third character through dialog between two people.
IMAGINE: Two soldiers are sitting in a trench during some war. They’re passing the time, talking.
BOB: So, what’s the scoop, Cort? Do you know what happened to Pete? I’ve been looking for him.
CORT: Didn’t you hear? He stepped on a land mine. Blew his friggin’ legs off.
BOB: Jesus! When did that happen?
CORT: Last week. They sent him home already.
BOB: Home!? The bastard owes me two hundred bucks! How am I ever going to get it back?
In the above example we find out that Bob is owed money by Pete. And the subtext is, Bob cares more about the money than about Pete’s misfortune. This defines Bob’s character and suggests he may have a pressing reason for wanting that money back.
Exposition should tell us things the way a fly on the wall would hear it. When people who know each other are talking, they use a shorthand because they both have common knowledge and they’re not going to repeat information to each other they already know. So you need to set up the conversation so the audience can understand what they’re saying by what’s not said. This adds more realism to the dialog.
As an exercise, go to a bar or a restaurant at a busy time and eavesdrop on other people’s conversations. Study how they pass information back and forth. There are specific ways people talk to each other based on the nature of the conversation. Mating rituals are different than business transactions (most of the time, anyway). Study the differences and try to discern the relationships of the people based on the way they communicate with each other.
REMEMBER: Convert your exposition to ammunition.
Table dusting??
I’m unfamiliar with the terminology.
Thanks again for the absolutely terrific series,
BB
Posted by on 02/23 at 09:56 PMYou’re welcome
Posted by James Hudnall on 02/23 at 11:31 PM
Next entry: Trainwreck DuJour
Previous entry: Outrage DuJour
